No flights, a 4-day week, living off-grid: Climate scientists try to save planet
theguardian.comReading articles like this make me quite sad, not because the described lifestyle is unappealing to me (I'm a vegan who doesn't drive, avoids plastic, and is "off-grid" on solar power), but because on an individual level, these efforts are so pale in comparison to environmental destruction caused by military, industry and large-scale commerce, I consider bragging or evangelizing them to be vain and even a bit egoistic.
Don't get me wrong: avoiding animal products, long-haul flights, plastic shampoo bottles are all worthwhile, but not for the reasons stated. They do not even begin to address the large systemic problem of climate change and ecological harm. They make us feel good, like we're "doing something" - and perhaps that's by design while the real perpetrators of our own extinction go unpunished and even unrecognized. It is "bumper sticker" activism while what's actually needed is a radical shift in collective consciousness. How do we organize such global action for effect?
A slightly more useful way to think about it might be that early adopters can try out and perfect new ways of living that later might be scaled up.
So if you take that perspective, it's not just what works for you, but what can you come up with that might appeal to others? Can you document what works and what doesn't?
> I consider bragging or evangelizing them to be vain and even a bit egoistic... How do we organize such global action for effect?
Well. One suggestion would be to stop feeling bad about evangelising and start talking about lifestyle choices with friends, family, and co-workers.
I haven't had much success with that, probably because it's difficult for me to disjoin emotion from passionate evangelism. It may even have been counter-productive. What has your experience been? Can you share any strategies for such discussions about personal lifestyle politics?
I think the key is to be friendly and not judge people and not come across as a fanatic. And be patient - don't expect any immediate results, lifestyle changes don't happen overnight. It may be important to leave emotions out of this, though I am not sure about that.
Reflecting on my own experience, I don't remember anyone telling me explicitly what I should do with my lifestyle, but I did meet several people who were talking about climate change and their own personal choices. The discussions were always calm and intelligent. In hindsight I can tell those conversations were a contributing factor in triggering my own lifestyle changes. But it took years.
Bringing up the latest climate news piece could be a good entry point for a conversation. Before I joined my current project team I'm quite sure they never talked about climate. Now we regularly discuss it during lunch breaks.
> They make us feel good, like we're "doing something" - and perhaps that's by design while the real perpetrators of our own extinction go unpunished and even unrecognized.
Arguably encouraging others to do these things is even harmful, because they then think they're "doing something" and consider their job done, instead of working on influencing society to change its rules.
Enjoy the brief amount of time that we still have to live in comfort then prepare to fight hard for survival or die.
How is a handful of people eschewing flights and 5-day work weeks going to have any impact on our future temperatures?
We can work on renewables, but the main source our renewable power today is hydroelectric and I have read that very little growth in hydroelectric power can be expected because the vast majority of exploitable topology in the USA is already in use for hydroelectric.
Its hard to imagine enough wind turbines being built to eliminate oil, coal, and gas very soon. I've probably made a mistake in my calculations so I welcome some help here. Maybe someone can correct this if I'm wrong.
total_usa_power_MWH = 3,808,000,000
fraction_non_renewable = 0.78
replacement_needed_MWH = total_usa_power_MWH * fraction_non_renewable
// replacement_needed_MWH == 2,970,240,000
turbine_capacity_factor = 0.32
nameplate_needed_MWH = replacement_needed_MWH / turbine_capacity_factor
// nameplate_needed_MWH = 9,282,000,000
cost_per_nameplate_MWH = 2,000,000
total_cost = nameplate_needed_MWH * cost_per_nameplate_MWH
// total_cost == 1.86e+16
cost_trillions = 18,600
Even if we pursue this course of action will it affect global temperatures. Other countries will continue to emit GHGs.
What is MWH?
If it is megawatts hours, it should be MWh (lower h), and over which period of time, day, month, year?
If it is megawatts, it should be MW, not MWh.
I love 4-day work week. Have been working 4 days or less for many years now, making my colleagues jealous. It's great. Never going back to 5 days. Never.
I'm getting quite annoyed now with the number of people who have little to no training in matters of climate getting called "climate scientists" by the press, or representing themselves as such.
Which ones from the article didn't you like?
I did a quick background check of the ones that I could but I don't remember the details; none appeared to have proper training in climate matters, though, that I recall. But just listed in the article itself you've got "sustainable consumption", "marine biology", "carbon management", "cognitive psychologist", etc. (The other day I ran across someone claiming in an online post to be a "climatologist", but in fact his other posts said that he was an oceanographer.) Those fields are at best only tangentially related to matters of climate, and there's probably not a properly trained climatologist in the bunch.
It astounds me that the field of climate science is taken so seriously when it appears to actually mostly just be full of hangers-on, also-rans, and wannabes. And I can think of a few big names in it who have little to no scientific training at all.