![]() ![]() Moreover, global warming is just the tip of the iceberg, it's the thing that is presented to us in the most direct ways, but other things like mass extinctions of species, oil depravity, overpopulation, forever chemicals etc. Even if it is already happening, reducing CO2 will (most likely) also reduce the warming itself, and make the future slightly more bearable. But it shouldn't be opposed to reducing CO2. It will happen, we all know it, and people are most certainly thinking about it. With incandescent lighting being 5x to 10x less efficient than LEDs, we can save about 1% of global emissions just by switching all the remaining incandescent light bulbs. Lighting accounts for roughly 5% of all energy consumption. In addition, we need to replace inefficient energy use with more efficient energy use. We only generate about 10% of total energy using low-carbon sources like nuclear and renewable energy. It hardly needs new technology, just better deployment of the technologies we already have.Ĭoal produces about a quarter of total energy, but nearly HALF of all emissions. Reducing emissions is really straightforward, and no mystery. On the other hand, fossil fuels being directly vented into the atmosphere (from leaks, or burning excess fuel) also contributes 7%.Īgriculture, mostly meat and dairy production, and deforestation driven by producing feed for livestock, is responsible for about 18% of greenhouse emissions. People were working from home instead of large office buildings, which means less efficient use of energy in smaller heating and cooling systemsĮnergy use in homes (for heating, cooking, cooling, and lighting etc) is responsible for about 11% of greenhouse gas emissions.Įnergy use in commercial buildings about 7%. Why would you expect the COVID "lockdowns" to meaningfully reduce CO2 emissions? There was no concerted effort to reduce emissions or energy consumption, and in fact the opposite happened.ĭemand for shipping, including large shipping containers and many small online-order car deliveries, skyrocketed. This is something Free Software enthusiasts are really blind about: we can't just make software how nerds want it we need to make software that will be useful and convenient for everyday people. ![]() Until Free Software is more convenient, there is very little way we can win this war. Most of all, learn UX and make your Free Software more usable and convenient than the freedom-snuffing software. Be their tech support when things go wrong. Help them install Linux on their laptops. Teach them about privacy and control issues. Preach to everyday people about using Free Software. Accept inconvenience in the software you use. Shift the culture until it is shameful to even do so. ![]() Refuse to work for companies that are locking down computers. Get people to use Firefox and Ladybird (once it's ready). They'll make sure they always have food and shelter. They'll make sure they have megaphones for their propaganda. They'll make sure the law doesn't apply to them. They'll make sure they're insulated from climate change. If you're worried about economics and making a living, remember that authoritarian regimes don't care if you have enough food.Īuthoritarian regimes only care about themselves and their power. If you're worried about any particular political thing, remember that authoritarian regimes don't even let you speak your dissent. If you're worried about injustices, remember that authoritarian regimes don't care about them and actually manufacture them. If you're worried about climate change, remember that authoritarian regimes don't care about climate change. Winning that war is prerequisite to everything else. If we lose the war on general-purpose computing, authoritarianism and corporatism are likely to rule the world. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |