I used to work at a fitness tech startup, but then when it didn't work out (heh), I took a step back and wondered what industry I wanted to be a part of. I wondered if a software engineer could help contribute to fighting climate change, so I started asking around.
I found a job in solar, then eventually started my own clean energy software company. Every day I wake up with the incredible feeling that I'm getting paid to fight climate change. If feels good, and I'd like to encourage you to consider joining the industry, too.
It turns out there's a huge need for software and other tech skills (data science, sysadmin, etc.) needed for the energy transition. With the deployment of so much "intermittent" generation like solar and wind, we need fuck tons of software and communications infrastructure to run a new "flexible" grid. For example, the California ISO is using neural networks to formulate the day-ahead markets, and recently started letting aggregated demand response providers (e.g. companies who manage smart thermostats) bid into the market as distributed generators.
So if you're thinking what can you to help fight climate change, the best thing you can do is get a job in the climate change fighting industry. Start googling around for jobs with climate change keywords ("solar", "wind", "clean energy", etc.). Start showing up to clean energy events (if you live in the bay area, check out my bayareaenergyevents.com). There's so many people in this space who came from other sectors, and it's incredibly easy to move up or start your own company doing some specific thing you think is needed for the fight. Also, feel free to reach out to me or read my previous comments on this topic.
"They say we won't act until it's too late... Luckily, it's too late!"
Tagging onto this to see if anyone knows of resources for jobs in Canada. I search every once in awhile for those key terms but finding an intersection with software jobs yields basically nothing.
Can you give examples of data science used by companies to fight climate change? I mean how companies used data analytics to fight climate change, as I know academic/governmental research projects analyzing climate change have used data extensively.
What I don't understand is why this is so controversial. I clicked on a link in the article, leading to this article: https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/06/new-study-shows-human-deve.... The comment on it is extremely dismissive about climate change. I see this on pretty much every news website nowadays. First of all I don't see how man-made climate change is even controversial with the amount of evidence we have, but furthermore I don't see why we shouldn't transition to renewable energy asap anyway. Even if climate change would be a hoax (which it is not), then why would it be a bad thing to make changes to prevent it from happening anyway? Why would it be a bad thing to get rid of air pollution? Why would it be a bad thing to switch to an energy source that doesn't run out in ~20 years simply because it isn't renewable?
Because it's much easier to deny something that big than to take care of it. We'd need a economic/cultural revolution at a global scale. Everything has to scale down, no more ICE, not more plastic, no more food imported from the other side of the world, reduce meat consumption, reduce traveling &c.
The current system is based on unlimited and exponential growth, everything else is considered a failure. An unlimited growth in a finite environment isn't possible, it's called instability.
The second problem is that many people convince themselves that "Science" will save us, that we'll terraform Mars or that shifting to electric cars will be enough, but that's too little, too late. Even if we'd hit our ecological goals, and we're not, we'd be far from fixing the problem. We don't need to slow down, we need a complete paradigm shift. It's like when you move form a basic 40sq meter flat to a fancy 250sq meter house, going back is very hard.
> What I don't understand is why this is so controversial
The amount of CO2 is not controversial. What's controversial is what we should change.
There are tons of people who fully believe in climate change but vehemently disagree on what we should do about it.
There are also those who don't think it's a reason to worry so much or panic.
All of those people get reworked by the controversy hungry Media and converted into climate change deniers, and the result is the political world we live in right now.
If we could disentangle all those things it would help a lot. But instead we get believers and deniers, i.e. basically religion.
There are also those who believe that exaggerating the problem is the best way to get people to do something. In my opinion that has backfired majorly.
I don't understand it either, so I had to come up with an explanation for myself.
I think it is controversial because the cost of this transition is not priced into the modern human lifestyle. So either the lifestyle changes or it gets a lot more expensive. And it challenges the business model of fossil fuel companies and the global power balance of oil producing countries. It can't get much more disruptive than this transition.
You are thinking in terms of what is good for human society. But the world is run by capital, and now that mass disinformation is relatively cheap to accomplish, it is even easier do discredit science if you have a descent amount of money to spend.
You're making a big assumption that simply doesn't hold: it's not a matter of "let's switch to renewables and keep everything else the same". Fossil fues have an energy density that's unparalleled anywhere else in nature and most renewables are simply riding off of that (the machines, factories, trucks and ships producing and transporting wind towers and solar cells are not and won't be running on electricity). Read up on EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) if you're interested in the topic.
I just read a calculation how automatic milking machines will turn a tidy profit on milk into a loss with energy costs per kwh just 10 cents higher. Milking by hand will be _more_ profitable with that small a difference.
So it's controversial because doing something about climate change involves massive changes to our way of life. Not simply switching your SUV for a Tesla, we're talking up to and including economic collapse and deindustrialization.
There is a relatively small group of companies/people who know better, but would lose billions if this problem is addressed, they have an army of lobbyists and media companies to push the hoax/not-our-problem-narrative, and finally you have a huge undereducated part of the population who are already skeptical of 'elitist' scientists even before the manipulation begins. This problem also seems to be more extreme in the US compared to other western countries due to e.g. the prevalence of Fox News and decades of creationism leading the anti-science crusade. All in all, you can't really count on having a shared definition of 'reality' any more, as this has now been politisized.
I'm really depressed about climate change. There is no way to fix this from an individual point of view. Society is impossibly reliant on fossil fuels. Individuals going vegan, reducing consumption etc will have negligible effect. The only possible solution to all this is a technological solution that requires zero sacrifice from individuals. Technology got us into this mess, If we don't find a technological solution to this issue then all is lost.
It's been pretty well established and even discussed on HN that higher CO2 levels impairs some facets of human cognition. I quick glance at some of the research suggests that this impairment can begin around ~700ppm. Having higher and still increasing atmospheric CO2 levels means indoor concentrations will make diffusion between indoor and the outdoor even slower.
On the climate related side, the graph of CO2 levels for the last 10,000 years is very consistent, around 260ppm, up till recently. We should have just as concerned (or were) when it crossed 300ppm, 400ppm, etc.
On a more political note, while some/most climate change deniers at this point are likely ignoring evidence - having graphs with non-zero axis can be called out as a bit misleading which makes the increase relatively larger than it actually is; visually it's at ~230% of it's normal level when it's actually 'only' 157% compared to baseline. Graph manipulation has been used to in the past to spread false information about global warming/climate change so I think it's especially important to make everything above board. It only takes a few people spreading the graph around with the axis cropped out and then everyone will cry 'fake news'.
And yet it says, "The report details the economic damage expected should governments fail to enact policies to reduce emissions. The United States, it said, could lose roughly 1.2 percent of gross domestic product for every 1.8 degrees of warming."
So an extreme rise in temperature of 3.6 degrees could reduce US GDP by 2.4%? That's about 18 months of average growth. That doesn't seem like a crisis to me - what am I missing?
>For the first time in human history — not recorded history, but since humans have existed on Earth — carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has topped 415 parts per million, reaching 415.26 parts per million, according to sensors at the Mauna Loa Observatory, a research outpost of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency.
I find the tone of these articles very counterproductive. The article hyperventilates over the number, but fails to treat it as a scientific result - one that's open to question by anyone.
Case in point: like most articles on this topic this one totally ignores the fact that the Mauna Loa station lies just 4 miles from an active volcano. Active volcanos spew CO2 into the atmosphere naturally.
Given these simple facts, how can this observatory's data be trusted? That's an obvious question every single person reading the article should have.
Nevertheless, you have to dig for the answer. Here's an explanation:
> ... The observatory is located on the northern slope of the mountain, 4 miles away from and 2,600 feet lower than the summit, which is 13,675 feet above sea level.
> ...
> Most of the time, the observatory experiences “baseline” conditions and measures clean air which has been over the Pacific Ocean for days or weeks. We know this because the CO2 analyzer usually gives a very steady reading which varies by less than 3/10 of a part per million (ppm) from hour to hour. These are the conditions we use to calculate the monthly averages that go into the famous 50-year graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
But even this article is vague about how interference from volcanoes is scrubbed.
The politicization of the issue of human-induced climate change has wrecked our ability to discuss this as the scientific phenomenon that it s. This leads to the very antithesis of science: facts that can never be questioned.
I'm fairly sure that meat production and farming for human consumption is the best way to have a quick global impact on climate change, slowing deforestation and slowing species extinction.
Fossil fuels are the wrong target for a quick win (which we need).
This might be off topic but I just don't know what else to do. I don't understand why we're not in full-on panic mode yet. It makes me scared. Really scared. As in I've never been so scared in my life.
We knew about climate change for decades. Scientists keep producing report after report after report. Every one grimmer then the preceding. Yet the global GHG emissions just keep going up. Governments and politicians have failed to act. I am tired of waiting for systemic change. I am tired of waiting for technological breakthrough.
While we should keep fighting for systemic change, I begin to believe individual action is paramount and a prerequisite for any broader change to take place. The time for signing petitions is over. It's time to act. There are no low-hanging fruits here. There will be no silver bullet. There will be lots and lots of tweaks across the board.
People don't like being told what to do. I get that. But I am not a politician telling you what to do. I am your peer crying for help. Please do something. Please don't say "most people" wan't sacrifice this or that. I am not talking to most people. I am addressing you, the HN crowd.
So what an honorable member of the HN community can do
- Stop flying to conferences. Go to a local meetup. It's fun. And cheaper. If you really need to get out of town, take a train. Don't think about it as not flying for the rest of your life. Rather, can we declare a moratorium on conferences for like three years? Let's hope by then Prometheus will give us carbon-neutral jet fuel
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19842240
- Shift your investments from fossil to green. If you can't find enough worthy greens, shift it to anything else. Some say it won't impact your returns
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-mythical-per...
Move your deposits and savings to a more sustainable bank. This might be one of the most underappreciated yet simple and powerful tools
https://fairfinanceguide.org
- Work less. Work part time, and part of that part time remotely. Reduce your commute. If your boss won't let you, find a job that will. In the current job market you can negotiate almost anything, and remote work must be the easiest thing to negotiate.
http://cepr.net/documents/publications/climate-change-worksh...
A firm lets its employees work four days a week while being paid for five. Everyone is happy, lower electricity bills, fewer cars on the road
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/world/asia/four-day-workw...
- I noticed that this one is quite controversial but I'll mention it anyway. Reduce your meat consumption as much as you can. It's fine to not go fully vegan, but make meat a special treat, something you are looking forward to, not an everyday snack. They say these new vega burgers are not too bad.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/30/dining/climat...
Apparently it takes 3.5% of the population to take an active stance to cause a change (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=YJSehRlU34w). I don't know how true it is or if it applies in all circumstances. But I want to believe it's true. That's what makes me tick.
Please do get involved with Green New Deal activism. Personal responsibility is great but it will NOT fix the problem. We need fundamental changes in how our global economy operates. We are having a moment in politics where it seems real change is possible, so please don’t let the slow progress of past years get you down.
Remember civil rights took decades of hard, thankless work before MLK Jr. stepped on the scene. Or labor rights (Saturdays) or women’s suffrage or any major leap forward. Sometimes you have to strike the match a few times before it lights.
The big hitters in terms of CO2 are Transportation, Industrial production, Power Generation and Food production. For each of those, some big wins:
- Travel less, particularly long haul and travel more sustainable, share a train, avoid air travel
- Buy less, particularly clothes and consumer electronics that you don't really need. Make things last longer, own less. Boycott manufacturers who make deliberately disposable/single use products.
- Make your home more efficient, that means insulation if you're in a cold place and ventalation, use of shade if you're in a hot place. Replace fossil fuel heating with renewable electric where possible
- Waste less food, eat less meat particularly red, buy things that don't have lots of waste attached (like short shelf lives, lots of packaging), and buy food that hasn't traveled far to get to you
- I've never flown to a conference. I've been on a plane twice in my entire life.
- No investments
- I work remotely; no commute.
- I hardly ever buy meat.
Yet none of this matters. If everyone in my country followed suit, it still wouldn't amount to more than noise in the statistics. Individual action like this is pretty much futile. You just need to catch a glimpse of what are the largest sources of CO2 (and equivalent) emissions.
You know why. Most of the world has market economies that rely on growth. The measure of growth is GDP and put simply GDP doesn't measure how much you're wasting, just how productive you are. Short term political aims are in conflict with long term environmental stewardship. The current US president only cares about his numbers, not the mess he's leaving behind. We'll be in full panic mode when it negatively impacts GDP, which will of course be too late.
It's important to uderstand that what's required is a collective action, and probably an unprecedented one. If yourself and a handful (let's say 1 million) of friends opt out of society, go off grid and eat pine trees like beevers, it will make exactly zero impact on CO2 emission. Plus we'll lose your voices in the actions we do need which are of a more political type.
Climate change is not going to be addressed through individual actions. The only way anything substantial will get done is through concerted wide-scale government action. Get angry, get in the face of your representatives, be a one-issue voter and let them know it: https://rebellion.earth/
(Before some idiots comment 'b-b-but what about China and India?" we can put pressure on them too: carrot and stick with help to invest in green energy and trade sanctions if they continue polluting)
The problem is that most of the ideas you propose - although good - only have force in the West.
Western countries are not the major culprit at the moment. EU has decreased their CO2 emissions by 20% during the last 30 years. USA has maintained them. China and India, increased them by 300% and China alone now emits more CO2 than USA, EU and Canada combined.
This is not to say that Western countries can just cross their arms and do nothing, but, they are not the ones that are going to change the picture and all this discourse about global warming has been turned in an anti-West political weapon that never addresses the real issues and never has the courage to point their finger at the countries that are the biggest problem at the moment.
This way, I fear no real change will happen until it's too late.
What do you think about the tokenization of emissions? It's certainly not a silver bullet or likely even a good answer, but it could incentivize people to choose more sustainable options. This could shift reducing emissions to a form of social competition thus more people might do it. In this kind of system, people might self-motivate themselves for the fear of being held accountable, or just simply for presentable bragging rights.
I upvoted you, all the 3 suggestions are very good. However, I don't think individual action is going to cut it, I think the government needs to start explaining the problem and coordinating change (especially in private companies), and that's why you need petitions. It needs to be on people's minds, so that they can support each other in doing all these things that you have suggested and more.
I'm with you, you are far from alone. My own thoughts are to ignore the pessimism and what others are/are not doing. As an individual, this is the only way I can defeat the prisoner dilemma. In addition to your suggestions, I would also say we need to learn to bring this topic up in all areas of life e.g. around the office, family gatherings etc. Not talking about uncomfortable topics may end up killing us, and our children. I want to be a part of that 3.5% :D
I know I’ll be bashed for this, but: create fewer humans. Isn’t it obvious by now that population increase is a big part of the problem?
Edit: I am not thinking of the direct CO2 emissions caused by breathing. It’s all the habitat destruction done for each of us and by each of us, the pollution in various forms and so on.
Can we really compensate for this by becoming more efficient? Can we become so efficient to handle a few more billion people? Where is the limit?
They have not failed to act. Rather there is no action they can take. Not a single one of your suggestions, even all together, will make any meaningful difference.
> I am tired of waiting for systemic change. I am tired of waiting for technological breakthrough.
You're going to have to keep waiting because that is the only solution. There's simply is no other solution.
As proof for what I say, think about the ozone hole and freon. There was a problem, but in that case there actually was a solution. And the solution was implemented even though it was hard.
If there was a solution here, i.e. a new energy source, it would be implemented. And no, wind and solar as they exist today are not that solution although they are incremental help, and they are being installed incrementally, which makes sense.
> I don't understand why we're not in full-on panic mode yet. It makes me scared. Really scared. As in I've never been so scared in my life.
I am completely with your mindset here. However, I think it is rather trivial to explain why we are not in full on panic mode.
Short-term profit and power games are more relevant to sociopathic and psychopathic individuals such as Mitch McConnell, Bolsonaro and tens of thousands of others in leadership positions. Marketing, political campaigns and propaganda smearing do the rest.
In Germany, the conservative party (CDU) as well as the "social" democrats (SPD) are in power and absolutely refuse to phase out coal as quickly as they did nuclear because of a few thousand coal jobs. The target is 2038 - as long as it fits their bill. Neither is willing to do the right thing because short term it might lose them voters.
Yes you heard that right - they will lose voters. Demographics in Germany shows us, that Germany is old and continues to age. Nothing but immigration will stop this.
Young people who care are simply overpowered at the ballot. This can sometimes feel schizophrenic as the vocal voices online are part of the group that votes less...
wasn't it obama who said that just by checking our tire pressure we would save fuel and co2? and checking tire pressure is something so so easy to do...
I'm no climate change denier, but there is a complexity to the effects which NASA has identified (and recently updated) https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer...
In particular the Sahel, famously arid and increasing in size a few decades ago, is now becoming more fertile again to the extent that people are moving back there.
Rising CO2 and temperatures is definitely a problem, but isn't technology making a difference already? There are millions of hybrid cars on the road just in the U.S., for example, and already over half a million EV's.
China and India are poised to manufacture and use millions of EV's and we are about to see a flood of very low price electric vehicles from these countries.
An electric truck maker is opening a plant in Ohio. Fracked natural gas, which is the "cleanest" fossil fuel, is replacing "dirty" coal in electric power plants. Residential solar is booming as prices drop and house batteries become a realistic way to store the power. In Massachusetts, for a few extra dollars a month you can now opt to purchase "green" electricity.
Research into better batteries, better solar panels, and more efficient hybrid vehicles and EV's is proceeding apace.
All of these technologies are bound to reduce greenhouse gas production not just in the developed countries but also in the places where it really counts--the billions of people of China, India, and Africa.
People are composting and gardening at record levels in the U.S. Interest in composting and recycling is now widespread.
If we accept that we have produced too much CO2 and need to scale back on burning stuff and allow the atmosphere and ecosystem to return to a status quo ante then some legislative efforts to institute and continue tax incentives to spur technology seems like the right thing to do.
For those wanting to discuss solutions, and not just problems, how about a wide-ranging carbon tax?
Specifically, a carbon tax set at The cost of recapture that then goes toward recapture (within the US, audited).
So for example, if this were applied to gasoline, it would just over double the cost but give zero-emissions. This is something engineers like us could easily afford in our personal lives. Worst case scenario, I imagine all things we buy would double in price.
However, as billions (if not trillions) get spent on such a technology it would hopefully get more efficient.
So perhaps a rollout schedule of:
2020 - 1% of recapture cost
2021 - 2% of recapture cost
2022 - 4% of recapture cost
2025 - 10% of recapture cost (and so on)
Basic food items for survival could have their capture cost subsidized by the government, so as not to harm those on the brink of poverty.
The brilliancy of this simple economic solution is that if meat produces way too much carbon, the cost will start to reflect that, and people will gradually move to more efficient foods or have an incentive to find a way to make more carbon-neutral ways to make meat.
We are already using lots of Nuclear power, turns out it didn't help!
Nuclear power is slow to build safely, and if we had started to build all that power decades ago of the sake of avoiding climate change you are already in the bizzaro timeline where the regime cared about climate change decades ago.
This is scary because of our current political situation. Even when nature is on our side we have mindless headstrong morons heading nuclear states and we seem to be in verge of war. People do not trust science and still believe in afterlife and heaven or hell rather than believing in our planet and its current problems. Amount of CO2 is definitely going to trigger extreme climate change and that is going to destabilize our geopolitics, and we simply are not ready for that change. We should start making life style changes for the sake of millions of species that are getting extinct and also to start a culture of responsible citizen of earth.
The Bible gives man dominion over the Earth. Presumably, that’s a license to do whatever we want with it without consequence. The Bible predicts an apocolypse driven by supernatural forces, not one of man’s making. There’s no room for both, therefore the one in the Bible is true and the one predicted by heathens is false. This is why Christians, specifically, tend to dismiss man-made global warming.
Also, there’s a lot of fear out there that renewable energy means less jobs, especially across the entire coal mining supply chain. There’s a fear that transitioning to a renewable energy economy means a transition from dumb jobs to smart jobs.
Can anyone recommend a reliable, self calibrating CO2 sensors that could be used with raspberry pi and similar or that could transmit data via BLE or wifi?
I would really like to understand those who are angry, feel helpless or are depressed because climate is changing. What is the thing makes you feel bad: is it the change itself, the direction of the change or maybe the cause of the change?
Ive almost lost hope at this point; while I will continue to support green movements and live closer to green, I don’t hold any faith that things will change.
If they do, great. Otherwise, prepare your children for a world where their children may be less intelligent due to higher concentrations of Co2. Water will be expensive. People will wear masks everywhere and only rich people can afford houses with completely pure air.
I truly hope it doesn’t come to this, but my fear is that when pollution gets to a certain point, those in charge will basically say “fuck it” and let things run their course.
Don't you think technology is helping? Hybrid and EV cars are becoming common and probably in 10 years, the average vehicle on the city roads will be an EV. Solar energy is coming down in price and residential adoption in the U.S. is booming. The average person today believes in recycling and cutting emissions. Battery technology is advancing. Also worth pointing out that in North America at least, vast reforestation has taken place. In a few years, we will be a lot closer to a zero emissions civilization, though probably we'll never actually get to zero but at least we'll reduce our impact substantially and then it will be a matter of waiting for ecosystems to move back into balance. There's no reason why for example the polar ice caps can't re-freeze, and there's even evidence of some of that happening in places. Don't give up hope.
[+] [-] diafygi|6 years ago|reply
I found a job in solar, then eventually started my own clean energy software company. Every day I wake up with the incredible feeling that I'm getting paid to fight climate change. If feels good, and I'd like to encourage you to consider joining the industry, too.
It turns out there's a huge need for software and other tech skills (data science, sysadmin, etc.) needed for the energy transition. With the deployment of so much "intermittent" generation like solar and wind, we need fuck tons of software and communications infrastructure to run a new "flexible" grid. For example, the California ISO is using neural networks to formulate the day-ahead markets, and recently started letting aggregated demand response providers (e.g. companies who manage smart thermostats) bid into the market as distributed generators.
So if you're thinking what can you to help fight climate change, the best thing you can do is get a job in the climate change fighting industry. Start googling around for jobs with climate change keywords ("solar", "wind", "clean energy", etc.). Start showing up to clean energy events (if you live in the bay area, check out my bayareaenergyevents.com). There's so many people in this space who came from other sectors, and it's incredibly easy to move up or start your own company doing some specific thing you think is needed for the fight. Also, feel free to reach out to me or read my previous comments on this topic.
"They say we won't act until it's too late... Luckily, it's too late!"
[+] [-] MuffinFlavored|6 years ago|reply
From their post:
> The only inputs to make the fuel are CO2 and water (both from the air) and electricity. The only outputs are fuel and oxygen.
---
> instead [we] use a process that uses only electricity (no natural gas, etc) and does it at room temperature.
---
> we absorb CO2 and water vapor from the air into an aqueous electrolyte.
---
> We then react the CO2 in the water with a copper catalyst to directly make alcohols like ethanol, butanol, propanol, etc
> we have a carbon nanotube membrane that replaces it, extracting the alcohols from water in a single step at room temperature
I think the question boils down to: How to remove CO2 from air through "aqueous electrolyte", then convert it to alcohols with "copper catalyst"?
[+] [-] tylerpachal|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WhompingWindows|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Avalaxy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lm28469|6 years ago|reply
The current system is based on unlimited and exponential growth, everything else is considered a failure. An unlimited growth in a finite environment isn't possible, it's called instability.
The second problem is that many people convince themselves that "Science" will save us, that we'll terraform Mars or that shifting to electric cars will be enough, but that's too little, too late. Even if we'd hit our ecological goals, and we're not, we'd be far from fixing the problem. We don't need to slow down, we need a complete paradigm shift. It's like when you move form a basic 40sq meter flat to a fancy 250sq meter house, going back is very hard.
[+] [-] ars|6 years ago|reply
The amount of CO2 is not controversial. What's controversial is what we should change.
There are tons of people who fully believe in climate change but vehemently disagree on what we should do about it.
There are also those who don't think it's a reason to worry so much or panic.
All of those people get reworked by the controversy hungry Media and converted into climate change deniers, and the result is the political world we live in right now.
If we could disentangle all those things it would help a lot. But instead we get believers and deniers, i.e. basically religion.
There are also those who believe that exaggerating the problem is the best way to get people to do something. In my opinion that has backfired majorly.
[+] [-] dakna|6 years ago|reply
I think it is controversial because the cost of this transition is not priced into the modern human lifestyle. So either the lifestyle changes or it gets a lot more expensive. And it challenges the business model of fossil fuel companies and the global power balance of oil producing countries. It can't get much more disruptive than this transition.
You are thinking in terms of what is good for human society. But the world is run by capital, and now that mass disinformation is relatively cheap to accomplish, it is even easier do discredit science if you have a descent amount of money to spend.
[+] [-] jonasvp|6 years ago|reply
I just read a calculation how automatic milking machines will turn a tidy profit on milk into a loss with energy costs per kwh just 10 cents higher. Milking by hand will be _more_ profitable with that small a difference.
So it's controversial because doing something about climate change involves massive changes to our way of life. Not simply switching your SUV for a Tesla, we're talking up to and including economic collapse and deindustrialization.
[+] [-] m12k|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ux-app|6 years ago|reply
A true tragedy of the commons.
[+] [-] KingMachiavelli|6 years ago|reply
On the climate related side, the graph of CO2 levels for the last 10,000 years is very consistent, around 260ppm, up till recently. We should have just as concerned (or were) when it crossed 300ppm, 400ppm, etc.
On a more political note, while some/most climate change deniers at this point are likely ignoring evidence - having graphs with non-zero axis can be called out as a bit misleading which makes the increase relatively larger than it actually is; visually it's at ~230% of it's normal level when it's actually 'only' 157% compared to baseline. Graph manipulation has been used to in the past to spread false information about global warming/climate change so I think it's especially important to make everything above board. It only takes a few people spreading the graph around with the axis cropped out and then everyone will cry 'fake news'.
[+] [-] MarkMc|6 years ago|reply
And yet it says, "The report details the economic damage expected should governments fail to enact policies to reduce emissions. The United States, it said, could lose roughly 1.2 percent of gross domestic product for every 1.8 degrees of warming."
So an extreme rise in temperature of 3.6 degrees could reduce US GDP by 2.4%? That's about 18 months of average growth. That doesn't seem like a crisis to me - what am I missing?
[+] [-] apo|6 years ago|reply
I find the tone of these articles very counterproductive. The article hyperventilates over the number, but fails to treat it as a scientific result - one that's open to question by anyone.
Case in point: like most articles on this topic this one totally ignores the fact that the Mauna Loa station lies just 4 miles from an active volcano. Active volcanos spew CO2 into the atmosphere naturally.
Given these simple facts, how can this observatory's data be trusted? That's an obvious question every single person reading the article should have.
Nevertheless, you have to dig for the answer. Here's an explanation:
> ... The observatory is located on the northern slope of the mountain, 4 miles away from and 2,600 feet lower than the summit, which is 13,675 feet above sea level.
> ...
> Most of the time, the observatory experiences “baseline” conditions and measures clean air which has been over the Pacific Ocean for days or weeks. We know this because the CO2 analyzer usually gives a very steady reading which varies by less than 3/10 of a part per million (ppm) from hour to hour. These are the conditions we use to calculate the monthly averages that go into the famous 50-year graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-...
But even this article is vague about how interference from volcanoes is scrubbed.
The politicization of the issue of human-induced climate change has wrecked our ability to discuss this as the scientific phenomenon that it s. This leads to the very antithesis of science: facts that can never be questioned.
[+] [-] chunkyslink|6 years ago|reply
Fossil fuels are the wrong target for a quick win (which we need).
Caveat: I eat meat once a week now.
[+] [-] perfunctory|6 years ago|reply
We knew about climate change for decades. Scientists keep producing report after report after report. Every one grimmer then the preceding. Yet the global GHG emissions just keep going up. Governments and politicians have failed to act. I am tired of waiting for systemic change. I am tired of waiting for technological breakthrough.
While we should keep fighting for systemic change, I begin to believe individual action is paramount and a prerequisite for any broader change to take place. The time for signing petitions is over. It's time to act. There are no low-hanging fruits here. There will be no silver bullet. There will be lots and lots of tweaks across the board.
People don't like being told what to do. I get that. But I am not a politician telling you what to do. I am your peer crying for help. Please do something. Please don't say "most people" wan't sacrifice this or that. I am not talking to most people. I am addressing you, the HN crowd.
So what an honorable member of the HN community can do
- Stop flying to conferences. Go to a local meetup. It's fun. And cheaper. If you really need to get out of town, take a train. Don't think about it as not flying for the rest of your life. Rather, can we declare a moratorium on conferences for like three years? Let's hope by then Prometheus will give us carbon-neutral jet fuel https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19842240
- Shift your investments from fossil to green. If you can't find enough worthy greens, shift it to anything else. Some say it won't impact your returns http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-mythical-per... Move your deposits and savings to a more sustainable bank. This might be one of the most underappreciated yet simple and powerful tools https://fairfinanceguide.org
- Work less. Work part time, and part of that part time remotely. Reduce your commute. If your boss won't let you, find a job that will. In the current job market you can negotiate almost anything, and remote work must be the easiest thing to negotiate. http://cepr.net/documents/publications/climate-change-worksh... A firm lets its employees work four days a week while being paid for five. Everyone is happy, lower electricity bills, fewer cars on the road https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/world/asia/four-day-workw...
- I noticed that this one is quite controversial but I'll mention it anyway. Reduce your meat consumption as much as you can. It's fine to not go fully vegan, but make meat a special treat, something you are looking forward to, not an everyday snack. They say these new vega burgers are not too bad. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/30/dining/climat...
Apparently it takes 3.5% of the population to take an active stance to cause a change (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=YJSehRlU34w). I don't know how true it is or if it applies in all circumstances. But I want to believe it's true. That's what makes me tick.
[+] [-] abalone|6 years ago|reply
Remember civil rights took decades of hard, thankless work before MLK Jr. stepped on the scene. Or labor rights (Saturdays) or women’s suffrage or any major leap forward. Sometimes you have to strike the match a few times before it lights.
A starting point for GND activism is the Sunrise Movement: https://www.sunrisemovement.org/
[+] [-] Slimbo|6 years ago|reply
- Travel less, particularly long haul and travel more sustainable, share a train, avoid air travel
- Buy less, particularly clothes and consumer electronics that you don't really need. Make things last longer, own less. Boycott manufacturers who make deliberately disposable/single use products.
- Make your home more efficient, that means insulation if you're in a cold place and ventalation, use of shade if you're in a hot place. Replace fossil fuel heating with renewable electric where possible
- Waste less food, eat less meat particularly red, buy things that don't have lots of waste attached (like short shelf lives, lots of packaging), and buy food that hasn't traveled far to get to you
Any more suggestions?
[+] [-] clarry|6 years ago|reply
- No investments
- I work remotely; no commute.
- I hardly ever buy meat.
Yet none of this matters. If everyone in my country followed suit, it still wouldn't amount to more than noise in the statistics. Individual action like this is pretty much futile. You just need to catch a glimpse of what are the largest sources of CO2 (and equivalent) emissions.
[+] [-] Slimbo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avip|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ForHackernews|6 years ago|reply
(Before some idiots comment 'b-b-but what about China and India?" we can put pressure on them too: carrot and stick with help to invest in green energy and trade sanctions if they continue polluting)
[+] [-] wtdata|6 years ago|reply
Western countries are not the major culprit at the moment. EU has decreased their CO2 emissions by 20% during the last 30 years. USA has maintained them. China and India, increased them by 300% and China alone now emits more CO2 than USA, EU and Canada combined.
This is not to say that Western countries can just cross their arms and do nothing, but, they are not the ones that are going to change the picture and all this discourse about global warming has been turned in an anti-West political weapon that never addresses the real issues and never has the courage to point their finger at the countries that are the biggest problem at the moment.
This way, I fear no real change will happen until it's too late.
[+] [-] Jhsto|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] js8|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maelito|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yesyesno|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drclau|6 years ago|reply
Edit: I am not thinking of the direct CO2 emissions caused by breathing. It’s all the habitat destruction done for each of us and by each of us, the pollution in various forms and so on. Can we really compensate for this by becoming more efficient? Can we become so efficient to handle a few more billion people? Where is the limit?
[+] [-] nwellnhof|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ars|6 years ago|reply
They have not failed to act. Rather there is no action they can take. Not a single one of your suggestions, even all together, will make any meaningful difference.
> I am tired of waiting for systemic change. I am tired of waiting for technological breakthrough.
You're going to have to keep waiting because that is the only solution. There's simply is no other solution.
As proof for what I say, think about the ozone hole and freon. There was a problem, but in that case there actually was a solution. And the solution was implemented even though it was hard.
If there was a solution here, i.e. a new energy source, it would be implemented. And no, wind and solar as they exist today are not that solution although they are incremental help, and they are being installed incrementally, which makes sense.
[+] [-] neuronic|6 years ago|reply
I am completely with your mindset here. However, I think it is rather trivial to explain why we are not in full on panic mode.
Short-term profit and power games are more relevant to sociopathic and psychopathic individuals such as Mitch McConnell, Bolsonaro and tens of thousands of others in leadership positions. Marketing, political campaigns and propaganda smearing do the rest.
In Germany, the conservative party (CDU) as well as the "social" democrats (SPD) are in power and absolutely refuse to phase out coal as quickly as they did nuclear because of a few thousand coal jobs. The target is 2038 - as long as it fits their bill. Neither is willing to do the right thing because short term it might lose them voters.
Yes you heard that right - they will lose voters. Demographics in Germany shows us, that Germany is old and continues to age. Nothing but immigration will stop this.
Young people who care are simply overpowered at the ballot. This can sometimes feel schizophrenic as the vocal voices online are part of the group that votes less...
[+] [-] kmlx|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shard972|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] _pmf_|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nik61|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rnentjes|6 years ago|reply
But seriously, the article you link to is directly stating rising CO2 levels as one of the causes as CO2 is good for plants.
[+] [-] blisterpeanuts|6 years ago|reply
China and India are poised to manufacture and use millions of EV's and we are about to see a flood of very low price electric vehicles from these countries.
An electric truck maker is opening a plant in Ohio. Fracked natural gas, which is the "cleanest" fossil fuel, is replacing "dirty" coal in electric power plants. Residential solar is booming as prices drop and house batteries become a realistic way to store the power. In Massachusetts, for a few extra dollars a month you can now opt to purchase "green" electricity.
Research into better batteries, better solar panels, and more efficient hybrid vehicles and EV's is proceeding apace.
All of these technologies are bound to reduce greenhouse gas production not just in the developed countries but also in the places where it really counts--the billions of people of China, India, and Africa.
People are composting and gardening at record levels in the U.S. Interest in composting and recycling is now widespread.
If we accept that we have produced too much CO2 and need to scale back on burning stuff and allow the atmosphere and ecosystem to return to a status quo ante then some legislative efforts to institute and continue tax incentives to spur technology seems like the right thing to do.
[+] [-] alexandercrohde|6 years ago|reply
Specifically, a carbon tax set at The cost of recapture that then goes toward recapture (within the US, audited).
So for example, if this were applied to gasoline, it would just over double the cost but give zero-emissions. This is something engineers like us could easily afford in our personal lives. Worst case scenario, I imagine all things we buy would double in price.
However, as billions (if not trillions) get spent on such a technology it would hopefully get more efficient.
So perhaps a rollout schedule of: 2020 - 1% of recapture cost 2021 - 2% of recapture cost 2022 - 4% of recapture cost 2025 - 10% of recapture cost (and so on)
Basic food items for survival could have their capture cost subsidized by the government, so as not to harm those on the brink of poverty.
The brilliancy of this simple economic solution is that if meat produces way too much carbon, the cost will start to reflect that, and people will gradually move to more efficient foods or have an incentive to find a way to make more carbon-neutral ways to make meat.
[+] [-] VMG|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SiempreViernes|6 years ago|reply
Nuclear power is slow to build safely, and if we had started to build all that power decades ago of the sake of avoiding climate change you are already in the bizzaro timeline where the regime cared about climate change decades ago.
[+] [-] kmlx|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maypeacepreva1l|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] steve_taylor|6 years ago|reply
Also, there’s a lot of fear out there that renewable energy means less jobs, especially across the entire coal mining supply chain. There’s a fear that transitioning to a renewable energy economy means a transition from dumb jobs to smart jobs.
[+] [-] polskibus|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] novaRom|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yjhoney|6 years ago|reply
Does anyone know / have experience whether this actually works?
[+] [-] nec4b|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] torgian|6 years ago|reply
If they do, great. Otherwise, prepare your children for a world where their children may be less intelligent due to higher concentrations of Co2. Water will be expensive. People will wear masks everywhere and only rich people can afford houses with completely pure air.
I truly hope it doesn’t come to this, but my fear is that when pollution gets to a certain point, those in charge will basically say “fuck it” and let things run their course.
[+] [-] blisterpeanuts|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fifnir|6 years ago|reply
If you're stressed about the environment you shouldn't be having children