I've recently found a good way of thinking about this in Effective Altruism (https://www.effectivealtruism.org/) - aka "donating time/money as intelligently as possible for the most good". It covers a bunch of intuitions I had and simplifies our options. Some highlights:
- Probably the best thing you can do (if you're a relatively-well-off tech person) is either dedicate a portion of your time to directly trying to solve difficult problems related to climate change (or better yet, poverty), or donate directly to demonstrably-effective causes
- Poverty is probably the more severe problem than global warming itself, and solving it also often indirectly works to solve the other. The biggest threat of global warming is how it will exacerbate poverty problems. Though ecological destruction is another worthy cause.
- By the estimates of some of the most effective charities linked above (at the time of estimation), one can roughly offset their carbon footprint for around $100 a year if donated wisely (best example was paying farmers in the Amazon to not deforest their land, preserving forests and preventing logging companies from making inroads). This includes average flights / meat consumption.
- Another $100 roughly in incentives/advertising to convert someone else to a vegan diet, if you want to offset your meat eating and are concerned with animal cruelty specifically (though you should probably still feel guilty, and there's obviously a floor at which this won't be something that society can throw money at)
- Around $3k to extend a year of life to a 3rd world person (or equivalent quality of life to many). Maybe less by now. Let that one sink in. Some of the solutions to provide huge quality of life improvements for vast numbers of people are very cheap compared to small improvements in first world countries.
- Overall it's very likely that programs like: recycling, reducing plastic use (plastic straws), energy-saving lightbulbs, bike commuting, eating less meat, green building renovations, etc... all amount to just a tiny drop on the scale of things, and probably just a few dollars worth of that $100 of effective emissions potential per year. Renovating the first world is probably just not that cost-efficient - or it's probably happening regardless of your input, and you're better off directing funds/effort/intellect towards something more effective. Overall, if your goal is to be a moral person in regards to climate change and make the most impact, you're probably far better off living exactly how you want to, make as much money as you can, and donate a chunk of that ($1k a year would be enough to offset 10x yourself) to effective causes - instead of worrying about your direct personal impact. (Link above directs to some of those charities, and metrics for discerning)
- That said, if you have rare skills (as most HN people reading this statistically do) and would rather contribute those to improving technology and better options, simply pivoting your career path can make a bigger impact than even donating. There's some calculus to this of course. I recommend reading the link above and some of the introductory texts/audiobook for help.
Personally, I'm contributing a big portion of my time the last few years to assisting with long-shot-but-high-impact logistics infrastructure startup causes I believe in, which I feel my skills are hopefully well suited for and might not succeed without me. If they pay off and it takes off - great. If not, I'm at least contributing the best I have of my skills/experience to a lottery that - if enough people follow suit - eventually some high-impact project will succeed in. Sometimes the aggregate of just giving your time to projects that don't make so much sense economically to you personally (usually due to risk of failure) can go a long way in pushing industries toward overall better outcomes. If this project fails or I find my time isn't being used effectively though, and my moral compass keeps bugging me, I'll probably just "retire" back to just finding a non-saving-the-world job that pays well and giving a portion of those earnings to charity. (aka Work to Give, the best option for the vast majority of us since work is often not all that obviously moral/important).
you bring up very good points, however cutting your own emissions is very helpful because a) rich people emit the most and b) you can be 100% sure that it works (whereas with donating you have to trust third parties) and c) it's pretty simple, even easy, to eat less meat, use less (traditional) energy and fly less. And to drive a smaller car (I don't judge americans for driving because it appears to be necessary there). And to buy less bullshit ;) you can easily reduce your CO2 (equivalent) footprint by 1/3 or more (if you are a usual person and haven't changed your behaviors yet).
Also, I think it's still misunderstood how fast change can happen if the people want it to and the politicians go for it. This hyper-capitalism feels like an eternal thing but it won't be. Because it can't. Younger generations want change and every catastrophe (and there will be many) puts pressure on the old institutions to change.
- Probably the best thing you can do (if you're a relatively-well-off tech person) is either dedicate a portion of your time to directly trying to solve difficult problems related to climate change (or better yet, poverty), or donate directly to demonstrably-effective causes
- Poverty is probably the more severe problem than global warming itself, and solving it also often indirectly works to solve the other. The biggest threat of global warming is how it will exacerbate poverty problems. Though ecological destruction is another worthy cause.
- By the estimates of some of the most effective charities linked above (at the time of estimation), one can roughly offset their carbon footprint for around $100 a year if donated wisely (best example was paying farmers in the Amazon to not deforest their land, preserving forests and preventing logging companies from making inroads). This includes average flights / meat consumption.
- Another $100 roughly in incentives/advertising to convert someone else to a vegan diet, if you want to offset your meat eating and are concerned with animal cruelty specifically (though you should probably still feel guilty, and there's obviously a floor at which this won't be something that society can throw money at)
- Around $3k to extend a year of life to a 3rd world person (or equivalent quality of life to many). Maybe less by now. Let that one sink in. Some of the solutions to provide huge quality of life improvements for vast numbers of people are very cheap compared to small improvements in first world countries.
- Overall it's very likely that programs like: recycling, reducing plastic use (plastic straws), energy-saving lightbulbs, bike commuting, eating less meat, green building renovations, etc... all amount to just a tiny drop on the scale of things, and probably just a few dollars worth of that $100 of effective emissions potential per year. Renovating the first world is probably just not that cost-efficient - or it's probably happening regardless of your input, and you're better off directing funds/effort/intellect towards something more effective. Overall, if your goal is to be a moral person in regards to climate change and make the most impact, you're probably far better off living exactly how you want to, make as much money as you can, and donate a chunk of that ($1k a year would be enough to offset 10x yourself) to effective causes - instead of worrying about your direct personal impact. (Link above directs to some of those charities, and metrics for discerning)
- That said, if you have rare skills (as most HN people reading this statistically do) and would rather contribute those to improving technology and better options, simply pivoting your career path can make a bigger impact than even donating. There's some calculus to this of course. I recommend reading the link above and some of the introductory texts/audiobook for help.
Personally, I'm contributing a big portion of my time the last few years to assisting with long-shot-but-high-impact logistics infrastructure startup causes I believe in, which I feel my skills are hopefully well suited for and might not succeed without me. If they pay off and it takes off - great. If not, I'm at least contributing the best I have of my skills/experience to a lottery that - if enough people follow suit - eventually some high-impact project will succeed in. Sometimes the aggregate of just giving your time to projects that don't make so much sense economically to you personally (usually due to risk of failure) can go a long way in pushing industries toward overall better outcomes. If this project fails or I find my time isn't being used effectively though, and my moral compass keeps bugging me, I'll probably just "retire" back to just finding a non-saving-the-world job that pays well and giving a portion of those earnings to charity. (aka Work to Give, the best option for the vast majority of us since work is often not all that obviously moral/important).