This kind of throwaway irony might have a place elsewhere on the Internet, but it’s not what we come to HN to read.
Unfortunately you seem to be attracting a handful of thoughtful responses alongside some other over-trodden irony, but the latter means the former is going to at best be sunk to the bottom of the page and at worst, live on only in a detached thread.
You alone? Probably not. Then again the impact of a single person is pretty limited, and you can't compare the emissions of an entire system (ie. the airport) to a single person. A quick search says this
>The best-performing 60-watt equivalent LED bulbs available today consume 85 percent less energy than their incandescent counterparts. [...] Lighting accounts for 15 percent of global electricity consumption and 5 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions
I'm not going to do any math here, but based on those numbers it seems plausible that the whole world switching to LED lamps will offset all the "flights had been flown empty to keep slots" in the world.
So it's already possible to not have to change a normal light bulb for 10 years — in fact there's currently a bulb that's been burning for 118 years.
The parent comment actually makes a good point, and shifting the blame for global warming to non-corporate entities is disingenuous. Sure, go ahead and recycle, buy LEDs instead of incandescent bulbs, buy local produce, these are all good things to do and I would never discourage them, but let's not buy into the nonsense that it's going to make a dent compared to say, shipping containers (https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/cargo-container-shipping...). To do so would move focus away from where things really need to change.
If I was someone partial to conspiracy theories, I might point out that this shift in focus is convenient for the corporate entities I alluded to.
You're touching on an opinion of mine that has hardened a lot in the last decade. You aren't going to solve systemic issues by going after random individuals. Systemic issues exist because some center of power benefits. Keep the focus on them.
That was specifically for "not having to change light bulbs for a decade" being "a huge motivation to switch".
As I said, I would never discourage people using LEDs, recycling etc. for other very good reasons. I just think it's important that we're honest on the impact of me using 2 LED bulbs in my house, vs. an entire office block having their lights and air conditioning on overnight.
Let's focus on making changes where it will have a large impact, like the shipping containers I mentioned. Anything else is counterproductive.
The way that it’s managed matters. OPEC also increases supply when it is advantageous to themselves, and certainly wouldn’t supply-limit themselves out of a market.
You know this is disingenuous, right? All of the things you described are water saving measures - the rationale for them is almost completely divorced from the climate change argument made by GP.
I mean there's definitely a conversation to be had about the effectiveness of domestic water saving measures in comparison to industrial ones, but I'm not sure it's entirely relevant here.
The point is the same: none of the things we've been told to do to conserve actually make a difference. They're just a relief valve so we can feel in control, so we can be blamed for individual failings when massive polluters, water users, plastic makers, etc can continue to create waste.
>when massive polluters, water users, plastic makers, etc can continue to create waste.
You realize most of these "massive polluters" are polluting on behalf of you? PG&E isn't emitting a gazillion tons of CO2 for fun, they're doing so to produce energy for you.
This is the same kind of "individual responsibility" nonsense that allows manufacturers of plastic bags to continue to produce billions of them while we pretend us recycling has any effect.
It's propaganda, specifically made to allow the true polluters to continue unabated while we impotently discuss ways to individually handle a collective problem.
Plastic is better off in the landfill anyway. Shipping it to China takes a decent amount of carbon, creates a decent amount of ocean pollution. Burying it locally is usually better managed and sequesters carbon.
But it’s still good that people are in the habit of recycle because metals like aluminum are still very advantageous to recycle from an energy perspective.
That used to be a much bigger deal in the US back in 1975. Our house had a coal bin and a coal fired boiler at that point. Insulation was non-existent in many places.
With almost 50 years of construction differences, moving that thermostat saves much less energy nowadays.
What discomfort? My children and I go barefoot and T-Shirt while the rooms have 19°C.
They are slim and muscular, ideal BMI, so spare me any "fat isolates" comments.
Subjectively, I am chilly keeping my house at 19° than at 22°. Not sure if this is an effect of thermostat placement or Nest’s algorithm for hot water rad heat (True Radiant).
How about +13 while just wearing more clothes? That would do a huge impact on ecology. Maybe even save us another hundred or so years before global warming comes
