TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Ask HN: How do we fight the existential threat of climate change?

36 pointsby edgefield0almost 6 years ago
With the recent news on carbon dioxide and methane levels, various feedback loops, and record setting temperatures, it seems clear that climate change is accelerating and represents an existential risk to humanity. The HN community is well resourced, well educated, and well connected. What can we do to fight the existential risk of climate change?

17 comments

badrabbitalmost 6 years ago
For HN crowd I think the best thing we can do is develop platforms and technology that facilitate and encourage unbiased and clearly presented news and information discovery by the masses.<p>Unltimately, even the best idea is useless without buy-in by the masses and policy makers. Right now most people simply don&#x27;t understand or accept the situation either due to lack of factual and audience-appropriate information or due to lack of information sources <i>they</i> trust that present the facts to them. Like it or not,tech is how information spreads and technologists have a lot of say in the outcome of this.<p>Tech aside,like many other factual information, climate change is presented as a fact people have to accept along with other scientific beliefs. What I mean is, people who are not confident in their own ability to objectively assess the facts rely on the trustworthiness of the people presenting the facts. Climate change should not be presented as an &quot;Us vs Them&quot; issue (obviously) and it needs to be presented in a way that does not challenge any other commonly held beliefs people might have. You can&#x27;t challenge someone&#x27;s sacred beliefs (whatever that might be) and also present factual information they&#x27;re not able to independently verify and expect them to accept the latter and reject the former,it just doesn&#x27;t work that way. This is mostly why I suggested neutral platforms that instill a strong level of confidence for every audience are needed.<p>Unfortunately, all I see is climate change being presented like any other scientific fact and on platforms that don&#x27;t have the confidence of the majority of audiences. You need everyone from the cowboy rancher in texas to the lumberjack in brazil working on cutting down trees in the amazon to buy in.<p>Solutions like mass reforestation by essentially bombing the planet with seed planting pods seem promising and countries are increasingly switching to renewable energy sources. It all just needs mass buy-in so the solutions can take effect before it&#x27;s too late.
评论 #20375147 未加载
评论 #20375113 未加载
hypefialmost 6 years ago
On an individual level : - plant trees - consume only the necessary - limit car, planes, trains transportation - Reconnect to the cycles of the earth<p>On a collective level : - policies against gas emissions - Laws: Same as speed limitation for cars, limit energy consumption per habitant - true information&#x2F;news&#x2F;education - Bans of polluting products ( plastics, heavy metals, ...etc ) - Change obsolete, unnecessary, inefficient and polluting tech
mlthoughts2018almost 6 years ago
My opinion might be unpopular, but I think there’s very little worthwhile activity a lone individual can do. Making progress to mitigate climate change will require long-term coordination of governments, elites, executives and militaries that just hasn’t been supported by the evidence of human sociopolitical history. Meanwhile, climate change is a topic receiving untold attention all the time and hundreds of billions in funding annually.<p>There’s a sincere opportunity cost if you don’t put your attention towards other causes that may be of equal importance in terms of preventable suffering, yet may have much more straightforward solutions due to lessened need for sociopolitical coordination or expensive consumer behavioral changes (such as focusing on simple ways to prevent diseases w&#x2F; Against Malaria or Deworm the World or others, or animal welfare charities like The Humane League).<p>However, taking it for granted that one should still focus on climate change, the main things I have come to conclude are:<p>- advocating use of reusable materials for cups, bottles, bags, etc., is a total waste of time &amp; will amount to virtually no positive impact, while risking alienating people away from the cause.<p>- personally conserving in any extreme way is likewise useless and you’ll just be living a worse life for nothing, while also risking alienating people.<p>- most municipal recycling is a total scam, and frankly we’re not in any danger of running out of landfill space. It’s just a feel-good distraction akin to “Showing that you care” by Hanson regarding medical spending.<p>- Finally, it seems that one of the simplest things humans can do to sequester carbon at a global scale is reforestation. While probably it will require governments to do this at the necessary scale, possibly the only useful action an individual can take is to find the most cost-efficient way to donate money to a charity or organization that plants and protects trees at a very large scale.
scotchmi_stalmost 6 years ago
I doubt there are many climate scientists on here, and I am certainly not one, but the problem as I see it is that the public and industry generally are resistant to subtractive solutions: driving less, going on fewer flights, carbon taxes and so on. Therefore the best solutions are additive: planting billions of trees and investing in industries that reduce carbon emission. Planting trees in particular is something that is- a) simple b) fairly cheap c) has a range of other benefits such as helping to improve air quality and reduce water runoff, preventing floods. d) helps wildlife more generally<p>I know it&#x27;s more complicated than that, but that&#x27;s a good place to start. Perhaps even pay people to grow trees on disused land.
评论 #20375198 未加载
评论 #20375220 未加载
iron0013almost 6 years ago
Work to get politicians who will fight climate change elected. Individual lifestyle changes will do very little (though they still should be done!), but mobilizing the resources of the government can make a real difference. I feel like this is obvious, but it seems like many don’t seem to understand it
评论 #20375210 未加载
tim333almost 6 years ago
Carbon pricing at about $50-100 per ton of CO2. And something for methane. This could help with a switch from fossil fuel to renewables and provide money for things like reforestation. As an individual you can campaign for policies like that that are economically efficient providing the best climate outcome per dollar cost.<p>With solar and batteries already falling below fossil prices plus a tax on fossil fuel I&#x27;m optimistic a big change could be made without that much lifestyle cost.
perfunctoryalmost 6 years ago
Similar recent thread <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=20353814" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=20353814</a>
sidcoolalmost 6 years ago
A recent news article suggested that planting 1 trillion trees would address the issue. It&#x27;s not trivial though.
estebarbalmost 6 years ago
I&#x27;m wondering: how much energy we could save if magically all our Python, Ruby, PHP websites appear rewritten in Rust or Go. Datacenters use a lot of energy: improving performance of interpreter to match efficiency of compiled ones would be worthy?
smitty1ealmost 6 years ago
If we &quot;fight the existential risk of climate change&quot; are we seeking ways to eliminate weather and render all climate constant?<p>This is not a troll or snark.<p>This is a sincere query to understand the requirement ahead of supporting the effort.
edgefield0almost 6 years ago
Why was this post flagged?
artur_maklyalmost 6 years ago
sIMplE.. we spend more time, talent, and $ to send missions to other dead planets.<p>Bill Majer said it better: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;CWarpTWk_jg" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;CWarpTWk_jg</a><p>this cartoon says it too: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pbs.twimg.com&#x2F;media&#x2F;B5-lDJWCUAAwfya.jpg" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pbs.twimg.com&#x2F;media&#x2F;B5-lDJWCUAAwfya.jpg</a>
titojankowskialmost 6 years ago
Hack direct air capture hardware.<p>Establish a growth curve for air capture like Moore&#x27;s Law.<p>Do mashups. AI + climate, Biotech + climate, VR + climate.<p>Be curious.
bassman9000almost 6 years ago
Nuclear. Lots of it. Hundreds of them.
评论 #20375771 未加载
temsa1almost 6 years ago
Doing little things as an individual is not impactful enough, maybe except eating less to no more meat ( in all its forms )<p>The only thing for this kind of issue that has proved efficient historically is massive non violent protesting ( that is what Extinction Rebellion, aka XR, does ), with people landing in prison...<p>As for trying to provide policies, we should, like any problem, have a look at the stats to prioritize, and aim at better rather than worse, we&#x27;re already at risk of hitting up to +26°C in 2026 if unlucky and not doing something, hard.<p>Fossil fuel out phasing is not simple to address, so we should limit it as much as possible while scaling alternatives. It also means that anything producing fossil fuels or ( CO2 ) should not be able to give any kind of money or service to any kind of politicians, to avoid conflicts of interests. Scaling alternatives (e.g. solar, wind, energy storage) means a lot of new buildings, and building something using portland concrete does create a lot of CO2.<p>Portland concrete is already the second more polluting stuff yearly on the planet after fossil fuels. Scalable and carbon negative ( actuaally removing CO2 from air) alternatives do exist to Portland concrete:<p>- MgO based concrete is carbon dioxide producing at first, but even more carbon dioxide absorbing during the 6 first months. It can be even be made from sea water, and was used by Romans and Egyptians in stuff still standing today. It can be 700 times stronger than usual concrete, dry even in wet climate, and doesn&#x27;t need metal structure to be mechanically good, you can just use wood or plant fibers instead.<p>- wood is of course one of the best alternative should it come from actually sustainable and renewable source, and if well integrated with nature, which is a challenge and where there is already a ton of abuse.<p>So as a politician, the first and best measure that is needed is to phase out Portland concrete as quick as possible ( e.g. in about 2 years ). Carbon Tax ( with NO exception to it) and subvention should help, probably a lot of control is also needed to avoid harming ( too much? ) nature because every massive and quick change we do is likely to harm and destroy nature.<p>Regarding energy, nothing is simple, yet we have to find solutions to phase out oil&#x2F; gas&#x2F;coal based as quickly as possible<p>- oil&#x2F;gas&#x2F;coal should be forbidden to search for more, as using already what we have access to is more than enough to kill us all.<p>- ( small ? ) nuclear is one of the best short term option despite all the cons everyone knows about it ( including needing a lot of water to cool down, which is unlikely sustainable. But we need to build a bunch of them, and it is dangerous.<p>- solar means a lot of concrete, land use and planet albedo change ( except offshore ), plus the solar panels themselves are essentially China based, and using rare earth elements, which is not good for scaling. It also needs to deploy very fast, we should probably deploy 1 every day for dozen of years, or maybe more to be faster and avoid risks. It also means we have to efficiently store the energy to be able to use it during the night.<p>- offshore wind is not bad, though like solar, it means energy storage. Onshore actually kills birds, which is not good ( plus it uses quite some land )<p>- Energy storage is also quite a problem:<p>* Li-ion batteries are not really sustainable, are not really recycled yet, and rely on rare earth element, plus they aren&#x27;t really safe either.<p>* Blue solution&#x27;s (aka Bollore) ones are a lot better, as they provide more cycles and don&#x27;t use ( much?) rare earth elements, though they are only good to store energy for at most a day<p>* Nawa ones would also be quite good, as they can be charged and discharged a lot faster than li-ion or BS ones, plus have a lifetime of millions of cycles, plus they are carbon based, which is really great (and they designed that to be great regarding CO2), though can hardly store energy for more than a day. As cells, they should be on the market in a few months, but there is no utility offers around it yet AFAIK.<p>* multi lake&#x2F;Dam energy storage ( with an upper and lower lake, and a pump in between) is not that good, as it indirectly produces a lot of Methane and should be improved to avoid that, or phased out.<p>Ideally to build what is needed regarding energy we should only use carbon negative technologies, and replace phased out plants with something locally integrated, probably something like a Permaculture inspired forest would be good.<p>Regarding transports:<p>- we should not allow airports to grow, and only allow flights short term to cross oceans. It also means building new infrastructures everywhere to compensate.<p>- Train should probably be only electric, and subsidized somehow. Research should go into making it more efficient and faster.<p>- Electric cars are also a must, though the battery technology has to change, quickly.<p>- A new generation of Ekranoplans should also be a good solution to replace planes to cross oceans and seas, while using less energy ( and maybe be electric? ), but can&#x27;t probably be achieved quickly.<p>Cotton and synthetic fabrics, plus leathet based products should probably be phased out, and you should have a multi year warranty on clothes you buy, or you should &#x27;rent&#x27; them to get a good incentive for durability instead of the current fast fashion harming nature, using a lot of water, and producing CO2<p>All the public research we do worldwide should be focused on the sole problem of climate crisis and survival, or get no funding ( I know it is tough, and maybe reducing but I see no better option )<p>We should also give people help and incentives to move to more suitable locations regarding climate crisis and new transportation constraints.<p>We should test and see if the policies are able to provide decorrelation between economic growth and CO2e growth, and if not, look hard at a sustainable way to un-grow economically to save ourselves.<p>As all of this must be made at an global scale, the biggest economic powers should show the example as fast as possible, and be ready for war with countries not following.<p>Nothing easy in there, though I see no escape from it
jacquesmalmost 6 years ago
Sorry, we&#x27;re too busy changing the world to be concerned with climate change.
评论 #20375118 未加载
QuickToBanalmost 6 years ago
An underlying problem is oligarchs that strongly influence the bribed politicians and government officials to continue taxpayer support for fossil fuels.