zlacker

[return to "I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]"]
1. vegeta+to2[view] [source] 2024-01-28 14:43:15
>>onnnon+(OP)
You can do something about this.

I got involved in climate advocacy in 2021. Since then I’ve successfully lobbied my local government to start an energy resources study, which will look at ways for my community to quickly transition to renewables. A small thing. But if we all do small things, it will add up!

Still though. My state, Arizona has really terrible people writing awful laws. This legislative session they’re proposing a 12.5% tax on purchasing solar if you’re not a utility, and a bunch of other regressive, anti-free market, pro-fossil fuel legislation [1]. We’re going to vote these people out of office this November and remove barriers to using our states abundant solar resources.

And since HN is a startup and technology forum, we need cheap utility scale energy storage as soon as we can get it. It exists, but solar+storage is just a bit too expensive for most regions of the country. If it does become cheaper than methane, that makes the move away from fossil fuels much easier. If you want to work on this, do it.

But also, citizens engagement is crucial. If you live in a regressive state like mine. It’s super important to get involved. If you live in a place that is going in the right direction, engage on the implementation details, there are so many ways good climate policy can get derailed in bureaucracies. There are a ton of groups that you can work with on this [2] [3] [4].

[1] https://legiscan.com/AZ/bill/HB2281/2024

[2] https://citizensclimatelobby.org/

[3] https://www.sierraclub.org/

[4] https://www.environmentalvoter.org/

◧◩
2. kylebe+mz2[view] [source] 2024-01-28 15:57:14
>>vegeta+to2
I disagree, strongly.

I think the next phase will be people like me, not climate change deniers but climate change doomers.

The US could go carbon neutral tomorrow and it wouldnt make a dent because of China, India and Russia. 3 Billion people pumping pollution into the the air like their is no tomorrow vs. a couple hundred million reducing their footprint isn't going to make a lick of difference. I think people have always had a hard time understanding things at scale, especially a global scale.

The ONLY answer, live your life like there's no tomorrow because chances are is there isn't going to be.

◧◩◪
3. ianai+4B2[view] [source] 2024-01-28 16:10:15
>>kylebe+mz2
That's assuming the situation follows your specified path.

In reality, an economy transitioned to tech beyond fossil fuels probably enjoys much greater production dynamics. For instance, the US could build out nuclear power to satisfy base board power and then grow that base by which ever rate it decided per year. At some point, mass desalination of sea water becomes affordable because electricity drives down the price. There, too, sea water is a huge resource for literally every mineral we could need (lithium, gold, uranium, you name it). Further, any co2 removed from the ocean will then be scrubbed from the atmosphere-provided the removed water eventually finds its way back, and it would. With more water and more electricity, more of the land is usable for things like habitation, commercial/industrial, and agriculture purposes. (The US and globe has a ton of unproductive land which can be productive with some combination of water+fertilizer.) There's a relationship between the growth of power produced by an economy and its yearly growth of gdp.

The above will also take place with solar. Eventually we will have the tech to power things off whatever sun they get through the paint/coating on their surface.

At some point, the other national players will see those benefits going to other nations and change accordingly. Or they will be left in the past.

◧◩◪◨
4. trimet+rD2[view] [source] 2024-01-28 16:25:28
>>ianai+4B2
You'll still mine oil for tires and roads, and you'll have gasoline as a byproduct. You'll use the gasoline to mine lithium and to transport used batteries. And you'll bury the batteries somewhere out of sight. Just like we're doing with nuclear. None of these solutions actually help preserve live. Life can thrive in a carbon rich atmosphere. It has before. But many years from now when the lithium batteries decay and the nuclear stores erode, life on Earth will actually cease.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. ianai+UF2[view] [source] 2024-01-28 16:37:21
>>trimet+rD2
We just fundamentally disagree on the criticality of hydrocarbons.

In your version of the future, we’re all dead. In mine, the future might include a better life for all.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. trimet+R43[view] [source] 2024-01-28 19:12:34
>>ianai+UF2
In your version of the future, we create the battery and the nuclear problems and we still have to deal with the hydrocarbon problem. In my version we discuss what to do about the hydrocarbon problem.
[go to top]