I often wonder how much of climate change is driven by our need for new things, to consume.
I don't want to downplay the need for science in avoid climate disaster and I'm by no means a primitivist. but, and please inform me because I don't actually know:
How much could we curb climate change if no one
- produced and purchased a cell phone for a year
- manufactured a laptop for a year
- manufactured and launched rockets for a year
- manufactured an automobile for a year
- bought a smart watch
- bought a new sound system
- drove to work where possible
- went snowmobiling
- mowed their lawn
- bought new skis
- bought a brand new bike
- flew across the country for a meeting
and so on.
I know a lot of stuff would simply halt, but haven't we seen coordinated national efforts on similar scales during war-time? I'm not proposing this as a solution, but more as a thought experiment and I recognize as with any thought experiment there are problems with it. But the underlying questions remains: What can we do today if we got serious about the problem?
This is aimed at people in the tech industry, and is more about what you can do with your career than at a hackathon. I’m not going to discuss policy and regulation, although they’re no less important than technological innovation. A good way to think about it, via Saul Griffith, is that it’s the role of technologists to create options for policy-makers.
It’s about technological options rather than policy or social ones. In regards to wartime type effort, there is that quote at the top of the article from Saul Griffith:
People say “this is a Manhattan Project, this an Apollo Project”. Sorry, those are science projects. Fusion is a Manhattan Project or an Apollo Project... The rest of this is more like retooling for World War II, except with everyone playing on the same team.
I do agree though. Being serious about climate change is much more “war” scale than “Apollo” or “Tesla” scale.
Getting companies/countries to let go of the philosophy of perpetual growth seems like a worthwhile goal. Seriously: what's 'enough'?
Such growth has been driven by energy that needs to be diverted to conservation/stabilization. Had we started a massive energy transformation plan a decade ago, we'd be halfway there. Instead the clouds on the far horizon draw nearer.
Sadly of late, I've felt a nihilistic indifference grow inside me.
Trying to infulence people on how they should do things is socially amazingly straining. The outcome at best is usually that people agree with you, but admit that they do not have any real motivation to do things differently.
If the cause and effect could be observed at a closer distance it might make all the difference.
I have made changes, for instance I don't own a car or fly anywhere. If I'm being honest this has meant compromise for me, because I live in a community of car owners the infrastructure for cyclists is minimal and the public transport is sparse.
I'll keep doing it and more but I don't expect people around me to change unless they are forced to.
I wouldn't be surprised if 10 years from now renewables and storage are so cheap it starts to represent a new age of energy availability.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/16/1689559...
