7 ms·

Stop buying stuff. Eat less meat.

devoply 8y ago
Don't have children and join a right wing party which wishes to stop immigration. The fewer immigrants the lesser the consumption, as when immigrants move to rich countries they consume much more than if they were to stay in poorer countries... Also less immigration means a smaller economy which is good for the environment. Poe's law applies. > The average annual carbon dioxide emissions per person, they found, was 20 metric tons, compared to a world average of four tons. But the "floor" below which nobody in the U.S. can reach, no matter a person's energy choices, turned out to be 8.5 tons, the class found.
- inapis 8y ago
  This is naive. Your argument is hinged on the proposition that rich countries will remain rich and poor countries will stay poor. Given the current economic activity, a shit ton of countries will become rich and their resource consumption will increase. It's not if, it's when. So stopping immigration will help,maybe, in the short term but the earth doesn't care for what happens in next 4-5 years. The earth does care if resource consumption increases exponentially over the next century.
- 12298765 8y ago
  Or, why don't you instead move to a poorer country? Since I'm guessing that you won't do that, how about reduce the 8.5 tons number down to something more reasonable in your own country? Why not make your country more like 1 ton, and invite everyone you can, so that carbon emissions are lower for everyone, and your own country is responsible enough to control that?
- s_kilk 8y ago
  An egregiously dumb take
  - devoply 8y ago
    The point is any such line of thought is unintelligible because all of civilization is based around exploiting resources. All this b/s is putting lipstick on a pig that you are raping. You want to save the world, then go back to living like hunter gatherers, and stop by force anyone who does not conform. Don't want to do that, enjoy the short existence that you have as a species on this planet.
    - dang 8y ago
      Please don't use HN for flamebait or ideological rants. We're trying for a different sort of discussion here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - dang 8y ago
    Please don't break the site guidelines by replying to egregious comments. Instead, flag them, as described at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.
patrickbuckley 8y ago
And smoke more cigarettes, so you die sooner, faster people die the less they consume in a lifetime.
bamboozled 8y ago
When people say “stop buying stuff”, I don’t get it? Should we just let the economy collapse and not have anything of value? If the “stuff” for example comes from recycled, fairly low emissions techniques of manufacturing combined renewable energy, who care? This is just generalising and it’s not realistic. Ultimately burning coal for power generation and using oil for transport are the main culprits. Eating less meat seems sensible, but it’s still not easy either, getting enough protein from a vegetarian diet is challenging for many.
- superpermutat0r 8y ago
  Protein? There's 25g of protein in 100g of raw lentils. Cooking increases water content, but protein is not an issue. Especially for vegetarians that gorge on milk and eggs. Still, eating less meat would not help at all. Biggest polluters and energy users are industries not related to food. Individuals are not to blame for their consumption, unless we blame them for adjusting their morals to fit their immoral companies.
  - KozmoNau7 8y ago
    I'm personally not a vegetarian, more of a "reduced meat omnivore", and I am a big fan of all kinds of hummus, this weekend I made butterbean mash made with garlic/thyme-infused oil, and muhammara on top: http://iamafoodblog.com/ottolenghis-muhammararoasted-red-pepper-dip-recipe/ http://iamafoodblog.com/ottolenghis-muhammararoasted-red-pep... It's inexpensive, easy, filling, healthy and tasty as all get-out. Along with pan-fried mushrooms and onions mixed with bulgur (also an Ottolenghi recipe), it was extremely satisfying. It's a major problem that we are now eating the equivalent of the sunday roast every single day. We should go back to making big cuts of meat a rare treat, and make most days meat-free. I also agree that individual action won't change much by itself, but we should still do it, and work to hold corporations responsible for their environmental conduct.
- saiya-jin 8y ago
  Which part don't you get? stuff means resources that needs to be mined, purified, transported, processed into some form, assembled into final product. All this employs tons of people but also causes tons of pollution. > Ultimately burning coal for power generation and using oil for transport are the main culprits. And all the stuff mentioned requires both. Huge transport ships produce more pollution than all cars of the world combined. But many like to buy 0.99$ gadgets from China, shipping included, right?
collyw 8y ago
Don't have children. That will make a far bigger difference.
- UweSchmidt 8y ago
  I don't think so; many western countries already have declining populations, but the birth rates in poor countries are still high. The world population will therefore keep growing until those countries have, idk, peace, stability, basic wealth, retirement options.
- saiya-jin 8y ago
  I hear this logic quite often, usually coming from some types of smart people. I don't agree - mankind future requires tons of smart hard working people to solve problems like these. To move mankind to reach other planets and eventually stars. If all smart people will decide to not have any kids, its a net loss for mankind down the line. No poor illiterate guy in 3rd world country will think like that. They will have 10 kids, and their kids will have 10 kids unless eventually lifted from poverty. They are not going to fix these issues by themselves. If you are afraid of long term commitment and dedicating big part of your life to raising a good balanced human being(s), that's another story. But if you are smart, well-off, you would do MUCH better for our future to raise next generation of environment-conscious citizens of this world.
  - collyw 8y ago
    Statistically you have a far greater chance of producing offspring who are serial killers than offspring who will solve global warming.
    - saiya-jin 8y ago
      yet we don't live in binary lives and grey area in between has more shades than newest OLEDs can display
    - pas 8y ago
      Why? This seems bullshit. There are probably a few thousand serial killers, but there are vastly more eco-firendly people, who all are trying to solve global warming, and a lot of them are actually solving it. Every time they vote for a candidate that is eco-friendly, every time they make decisions that are aligned with the goal.

Don't have children and join a right wing party which wishes to stop immigration. The fewer immigrants the lesser the consumption, as when immigrants move to rich countries they consume much more than if they were to stay in poorer countries... Also less immigration means a smaller economy which is good for the environment. Poe's law applies. > The average annual carbon dioxide emissions per person, they found, was 20 metric tons, compared to a world average of four tons. But the "floor" below which nobody in the U.S. can reach, no matter a person's energy choices, turned out to be 8.5 tons, the class found.

inapis 8y ago
This is naive. Your argument is hinged on the proposition that rich countries will remain rich and poor countries will stay poor. Given the current economic activity, a shit ton of countries will become rich and their resource consumption will increase. It's not if, it's when. So stopping immigration will help,maybe, in the short term but the earth doesn't care for what happens in next 4-5 years. The earth does care if resource consumption increases exponentially over the next century.
12298765 8y ago
Or, why don't you instead move to a poorer country? Since I'm guessing that you won't do that, how about reduce the 8.5 tons number down to something more reasonable in your own country? Why not make your country more like 1 ton, and invite everyone you can, so that carbon emissions are lower for everyone, and your own country is responsible enough to control that?
s_kilk 8y ago
An egregiously dumb take
- devoply 8y ago
  The point is any such line of thought is unintelligible because all of civilization is based around exploiting resources. All this b/s is putting lipstick on a pig that you are raping. You want to save the world, then go back to living like hunter gatherers, and stop by force anyone who does not conform. Don't want to do that, enjoy the short existence that you have as a species on this planet.
  - dang 8y ago
    Please don't use HN for flamebait or ideological rants. We're trying for a different sort of discussion here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dang 8y ago
  Please don't break the site guidelines by replying to egregious comments. Instead, flag them, as described at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.

patrickbuckley 8y ago

And smoke more cigarettes, so you die sooner, faster people die the less they consume in a lifetime.

bamboozled 8y ago

When people say “stop buying stuff”, I don’t get it? Should we just let the economy collapse and not have anything of value? If the “stuff” for example comes from recycled, fairly low emissions techniques of manufacturing combined renewable energy, who care? This is just generalising and it’s not realistic. Ultimately burning coal for power generation and using oil for transport are the main culprits. Eating less meat seems sensible, but it’s still not easy either, getting enough protein from a vegetarian diet is challenging for many.

superpermutat0r 8y ago
Protein? There's 25g of protein in 100g of raw lentils. Cooking increases water content, but protein is not an issue. Especially for vegetarians that gorge on milk and eggs. Still, eating less meat would not help at all. Biggest polluters and energy users are industries not related to food. Individuals are not to blame for their consumption, unless we blame them for adjusting their morals to fit their immoral companies.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  I'm personally not a vegetarian, more of a "reduced meat omnivore", and I am a big fan of all kinds of hummus, this weekend I made butterbean mash made with garlic/thyme-infused oil, and muhammara on top: http://iamafoodblog.com/ottolenghis-muhammararoasted-red-pepper-dip-recipe/ http://iamafoodblog.com/ottolenghis-muhammararoasted-red-pep... It's inexpensive, easy, filling, healthy and tasty as all get-out. Along with pan-fried mushrooms and onions mixed with bulgur (also an Ottolenghi recipe), it was extremely satisfying. It's a major problem that we are now eating the equivalent of the sunday roast every single day. We should go back to making big cuts of meat a rare treat, and make most days meat-free. I also agree that individual action won't change much by itself, but we should still do it, and work to hold corporations responsible for their environmental conduct.
saiya-jin 8y ago
Which part don't you get? stuff means resources that needs to be mined, purified, transported, processed into some form, assembled into final product. All this employs tons of people but also causes tons of pollution. > Ultimately burning coal for power generation and using oil for transport are the main culprits. And all the stuff mentioned requires both. Huge transport ships produce more pollution than all cars of the world combined. But many like to buy 0.99$ gadgets from China, shipping included, right?

collyw 8y ago

Don't have children. That will make a far bigger difference.

UweSchmidt 8y ago
I don't think so; many western countries already have declining populations, but the birth rates in poor countries are still high. The world population will therefore keep growing until those countries have, idk, peace, stability, basic wealth, retirement options.
saiya-jin 8y ago
I hear this logic quite often, usually coming from some types of smart people. I don't agree - mankind future requires tons of smart hard working people to solve problems like these. To move mankind to reach other planets and eventually stars. If all smart people will decide to not have any kids, its a net loss for mankind down the line. No poor illiterate guy in 3rd world country will think like that. They will have 10 kids, and their kids will have 10 kids unless eventually lifted from poverty. They are not going to fix these issues by themselves. If you are afraid of long term commitment and dedicating big part of your life to raising a good balanced human being(s), that's another story. But if you are smart, well-off, you would do MUCH better for our future to raise next generation of environment-conscious citizens of this world.
- collyw 8y ago
  Statistically you have a far greater chance of producing offspring who are serial killers than offspring who will solve global warming.
  - saiya-jin 8y ago
    yet we don't live in binary lives and grey area in between has more shades than newest OLEDs can display
  - pas 8y ago
    Why? This seems bullshit. There are probably a few thousand serial killers, but there are vastly more eco-firendly people, who all are trying to solve global warming, and a lot of them are actually solving it. Every time they vote for a candidate that is eco-friendly, every time they make decisions that are aligned with the goal.