1183
Incandescent light bulbs are officially banned in the U.S.
(www.digitaljournal.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
1183 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59192 readers
2103 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Is your point we should not be taking steps to decrease electricity usage because this step by itself doesn't fix the entire problem?
People will complain about climate change than complain about LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE ATTEMPT to improve it. Isnt this what people are always saying needs to happen?? That individual action isnt the way but we need legislature to fix everything? What did people think would happen if governments try to fight climate change? That our lives would in no way shape or form be affected?
The answer is everyone else has to fix climate change. Everyone but me
When you have billionares shooting off joy ride rocket ships to space putting out more pollutants than 1000 regular people do in a lifetime per trip, yeah, my recycling everything and switching to oat milk is a pretty futile effort. Individual actions are fine, but there are some things that need the force of law to make a difference.
Agreed, both are completely required.
You're only one person, you don't have to take full responsibility for all of climate change. But you can take responsibility for your slice of climate change
This line of discussion needs hard numbers.
https://ideas.ted.com/environmental-impact-carbon-emissions-of-space-tourism/
https://gizmodo.com/jeff-bezos-space-joyride-emitted-a-lifetime-s-worth-of-1848196182
Like many things there is a lot of back and forth depending on what numbers you throw into the calculation. Raw carbon from the rocket fuel may be low, but taking in indirect sources raises the totals dramatically. I prefer to look ilat the totality of things since things like flying private jets to the launch site wouldn't happen if there where no launch to attend.
75 to 1000 tons of CO2?
That's, what, 5-62 years of an average American lifestyle?
Honestly, that's not so bad lol
I'll give them a pass on it if they go live in a cave for the next couple decades to balamce things out.
Well, sure, space tourism emissions are gonna be relatively enormous compared to other forms of travel, but I was thinking of stuff like that, versus typical individual emissions, emissions by industry, etc., as % of total global emissions.
The second article gives some comparison to individual emissions. Another way to look at it though, if Jeff's space trip to generate (to pull numbers out of the air) 1000x the average annual output of an individual then controlling a single point is going to be far more practical than attempting to get 1000 others to do what is needed to offset it PLUS whatever amounts needed to have a net reduction. There's been a commonly floated stat that 100 companies are responsible for the majority of global emissions, getting those 100 to reduce their output by half is going to be a lot simpler and have a larger impact overall than to try and coordinate the 7B+ people on the planet.
Doing your own actions sets a good example and is good practice, but a tiny dot in the global scale of things compared to things like travel and industrial output.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jul/22/instagram-posts/no-100-corporations-do-not-produce-70-total-greenh/
To dispute to 100 entitites part, is above which seems viable too. On net though, to look at it in a simplified manner I've never launched a rocket to space, but for that to be offset would take the collective action of a sizable number of people.
Well, the sum of "things like travel and industrial output" (which are affected by individual actions) is enormous. Human emissions in total are, shockingly, the sum of all emissions caused by individuals. What I'm really getting at here is that we need to see something like a Gini coefficient, distribution breakdown, etc. of emissions across the entire population (globally would be informative, within more developed countries would also be informative). You look at people driving around megayachts and taking private jets everywhere, obviously as an individual their impact is a thousand times out of whack, but I'd be surprised if that amounts to more than a drop in the bucket unless you start expanding that category as wide as to include "car owners" and such.
I bring it up because it seems like the kind of "I can't do anything as an individual" line of reasoning I see so much seems to be really problematic and preventing these problems from actually being resolved.
It's not to say individuals can't do anything collective action works in most any aspect of life. What the concern becomes is the fact the major populous needs to forgo so much just to make up for the activities of a few people too special to stand in line with the rest.
https://ips-dc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/High-Flyers-2023-Report.pdf
A recent study here puts private flight as being somewhere around 10X more emissions costly in a per-person basis globally based on and more than 1000X less efficient that train travel where it available on the same distance. That just counting personal flight which may have some buisiness existing, though many could be forgone and done by a web confrence save for the 'drinks amd golf' aspect to those meetings, but large pleasure boats and non-comercial space flights are pure luxury expendatures that the world could do without. Still the larger populous is told we need to cut back while such things continues on.
I get it, but my point is, quick AFK napkin math here - you have a thousand billionaires, each doing 1000x the pollution of your average person (all inclusive) - that still only comes to about 1/8000 of the pollution in the world. They can go to hell and all, but it absolutely doesn't mean the rest of us don't have to do anything to fix the problem.
Direct actions accurate enough, however you should take in account for the assets that these people are in control of as well. The average gas station employee can't do amything about the major operations of the Shell/Exon/BP corporation, but the executives in charge of it can. The government can also compelle action by those executives and in theory should be acting on behalf of the population, but are often too swayed by lobbying efforts and promises that the corporation will provide jobs and prosperity if left to their own devices.
Still not arguing that individuals shouldn't cut down on their own as well, too many people including myself have too much stuff about. George Carlin had a wonderful bit about that years ago, you house is just a place to store stuff. On that front one of my biggest focuses in recent years has been in trying to promote 'better, not more' thinking around me. In short it could be expressed as 'nobody is going to be looking to inherit grandma's particle board table from Walmart'. Stop buying cheap garbage where possible and chose your forever piece, or even better learn to build your own, skills are transferable just as goods are.
That's true in part, but there's also a lot of "collective" decisions - automobile use and agricultural choices come to mind - that have huge environmental impacts but are largely at individual discretion. As well as not consuming endless garbage products, like you say.
It's just a joke, we need to do much more