HN Simulatornew | past | comments | lists | submit | plaguna's commentslogin

How many devices with replaceable batteries will they get to own?


Sadly, this being Hacker News, it won't catch much attention and will be quickly flagged by people who have too much karma.

But I think we are making progress, slowly, sadly too slowly, with the current summer we are having in Europe, of the impact of our past actions in the weather. And make no mistake, eating so much meat and drinking so much milk, is a huge impact we are inflicting on our planet.

Please do not comment with "I do X" or "In our house, we avoid doing Y" - it is not about you and me, it is about society. I am convinced, you are convinced, we need everyone to be convinced.


Everyone apart from a few stragglers agree the climate is changing. Most people agree the world won’t change its behaviour on its own to stop that.

So we can thus incentivise change (things like renewables being far cheaper than fossil fuel) globally, and adapt to reality.

There are a vocal minority whining about how we need to stop eating beef or milk annd stop using energy and there are those who make beef and milk more sustainable and make generating energy sustainable. I have time for the latter. The former can go hand out with the coal rollers.


How do you make beef and milk more sustainable? I'm honestly wondering. To me it seems similar to saying: we can make coal power plants more efficient. Equivalent to more "efficient" (however you want to define that) forms of animal husbandry.

It doesn't change the fact that you're still burning coal, while you could be putting up solar.


The goal isn’t to burn coal, it’s to generate electricity or heat, so make the alternative ways better and you win.

Your force people to stop heating their homes they’ll revolt. You give them a better alternative they’ll take it.

> How do you make beef and milk more sustainable?

This is the right question. And is being answered, along with other improvements in farming. I have no idea about the specifics, as I’m not a farmer.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002203022...

https://discoverwildscience.com/the-dutch-are-growing-floati...

Far too many so-called environmentalists are far more concerned with stopping life rather than practical methods to reduce and eliminate harm, and they get ignored - and worse fought back against.

“If you build a solar farm generating 100MWh rather than an ethanol farm generating 50MWh that’s bad because the it’s a supper slope to banning beefburgers”


It is not just a few stragglers, 30% of americans believe climate change isnt real, the us president is one of them.

Fighting climate change is not going to be successful without sacrifice, we tried that for the last decades and fossil fuel consumption has only risen.

Of course people dont want to do that and so instead deny it happening or that it will be magically fixed in the future.


Okay lets get this straight, animals do not contribute to global warming. The co2 they emit has been taken from the atmosphere from plants.

Methane breaks down to Co2 in the atmosphere on average in 9.6 years.

Animal rearing does not permanently affect the climate.

Increasing stock sizes does increase the methane level equilibrium but there are mitigations to this, there are additives to feed that can reduce methane emissions to 1%. Last I checked a few years ago, there were pilot programs to determine effects on animal welfare and product quality.

The problem we should be focusing on is fossil fuels.


> Methane breaks down to Co2 in the atmosphere on average in 9.6 years.

Despite which, over a 100 year period it has 25 times the warming impact as the CO2 it turns into.

> The problem we should be focusing on is fossil fuels.

Everyone should focus on whatever they know how to make a dent with, the "sustainable" emissions rate is 0.1% of the current rate which is essentially "we need to fix everything everywhere except for pick one of grassland or North Korea".

https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector


Animal-emitted CO2 isn't the problem, but methane.

The CO2 captured by plants and eaten by livestock gets converted in part to methane, a more more potent greenhouse gas. This does eventually degrade back to the original CO2, but on a scale of decades, it's currently too slow to prevent accumulation of methane.


FWIW, no matter the issue, this kind of tone makes me close up for any rational arguments. I wish I could look past it, but I just can't.


It's probably not the tone. You only choose to hear that tone and close up. (From my experience)

I hold some fringe ideas, e.g. helmets are bad. So I have lots of experience with handling discussion where people close up for any rational argument. Because I am just wrong by definition. That really lets you explore how people react to ideas they do not support.


Yeah, straight out denial of somebody's experience is another debate killer.


Beef specifically. If everybody switched to pork, chicken and fish that would mitigate most of this and it's a much more realistic ask.


I would much rather have Europe install ACs instead. Stopping meat, not installing ACs, degrowth all look like masochistic ways to show that we are repenting.


ACs are not going to stop storms, floods, droughts and the rising sea level. Fighting climate change requires sacrifice of current comforts for an easier life of future generations.

So of course we are not going to do anything about it, when it is much easier to deny it exists or pretend that it is going to magically fix itself in the future.


The deaths due to lack of ac is more than predicted deaths due to storms or droughts


It will be flagged because of the manipulative headline.


This is what I do, but on the phone, the iOS app at least, it respects the unfollow preferences and displays that "Something went wrong" message.


I guess I really should download the iOS app when browsing LinkedIn on my phone then! Thanks for the tip.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: