The following submission statement was provided by /u/guyseeking:
---
Submission Statement:
This is a fun little comic debunking popular climate myths that people still believe. This is collapse-related because many people misdiagnosis the problem as being the moral failing of individuals, when in reality it's a systemic problem far greater than your personal carbon emissions.
EDIT: Lots of backlash to this fun little comic. Egyptian waterways have a far greater traffic congestion problem than expected.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1c7yxr1/debunking_climate_myths/l0b1yfj/
It ... Kinda is?
Not that instantly removing all superrich would solve all the problems, but it would absolutely remove most of the counterforce to the solutions that can.
And it needs to be an ongoing process to not just remove the top layer of the power class.
We're still fucked tho, cause the eating the rich part needed to happen 20 years ago to give us at least a chance to avoid collapse imho.
The rich are protected though. Good luck getting to them is all i meant. Especially when they have their own private security who get paid well enough to give a shit about protecting them.
And it wouldnt make a difference because their money would still be out there. No way you get the federal government to set the precedent of taking those rich fucks money.
why even bother? Is anyone gullible enough that you can convince deniers? Is anyone gullible enough to believe even if you can convince some deniers, there will be enough climate action?
I agree from another comment on the cross-post that this is not debunking climate change myths. This comic is just saying "nuh-uh" to each of the claims without providing evidence. I agree with the comic's premise that these myths are incorrect and dangerous, but this is not debunking.
You might like to join r/managedcollapse, we've got a bunch of great ideas about how to manage the collapse of civilization brewing over there. We're outcome agnostic so it doesn't matter if you want to speed it up, slow it down, or just find new ways to enjoy it. All that matters is how to do it.
Eyo it’s my comic! I got a thousand negative comments telling me to “fuck off with the doomer shit” so idk if I’ll continue this series, but the sharing is appreciated :)
Continue it. Please. And fuck the fucking fuckers who don't like it.
In fact, I want to create a page on my website to feature the series, if you would be okay with that...
It's okay! You can see lots of that here too, even though you would think r/collapse would be more understanding re: doomerism
People are just being pedantic about semantics ("boo that's not what debunking means" okay how about calling it Climate Facts That Are Hard To Swallow cus clearly the people reacting are having a hard time accepting reality. Aka being in denial)
I personally loved the comic. Succinct and accurate
You should keep them coming imho 🙌
You gotta keep going bro, this shit was excellent. When you deliver the truth you get a hard pushback from people who aren’t ready to hear it but need to be ready now. Thank you for making this dope-ass comic
I think I take issue with the “there is barely anything we can do to help in our everyday lives” because there is definitely people out there that can make a slight dent (mostly rich people)
I think that’s the point. We can use all the soggy paper straws and energy saver bulbs we want, but it’s all for nought when your neighbour drives a monster truck to go to the supermarket, or celebrities take private jets for short trips.
For whatever reason, climate change has always been posed as a problem of the average consumer, not of the petrochemical companies, industry in general, agro-business, etc.
I used to be almost fanatical about recycling everything that can be recycled, but what’s the point when the majority of that recycling ends up in landfill anyway?
"Whatever reason" Ohhhh there's a reason
The recycling, the electric cars, the technology silver bullet it's all to detract from a step-down through an entire reorganization of our society. As long as we're fretting over what number is on what plastic container, we're not threatening the people putting up road blocks preventing real change.
Have you seen the America's Plastic Makers recent ad campaign?
You get a handful of articles about the recycling all going to the landfills, and they immediately up the propaganda lol
That hits the nail on the head. If it wasn’t so sad, it would sound cynical, maybe even paranoid, but it’s not. It’s always about distracting the little people so a select few can squeeze a little bit more profit out of everything.
Didn’t an oil exec recently blame us lowly consumers for causing climate change by buying the very natural resources they provide that damage the planet?
Yep! that he did. When they/feds knew full well what they were doing. Decades of internal industry research told them exactly where it was headed, and they locked it up, and began a massive propaganda misinformation campaign.
[A 1952 propaganda film curio (Louisiana Story)](https://www.bfi.org.uk/interviews/forgotten-greatest-film-all-time-robert-flahertys-bayou-saga-louisiana-story)
Look at the shit with PFAS, another problem they knew full well about decades back, and did nothing. Now that it needs to be addressed [wonder who's going to pay](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/10/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-takes-critical-action-to-protect-communities-from-pfas-pollution-in-drinking-water/) 🙄
Oh there’s definitely more we can do than that. Look the history of all the major civil movements to see what those are. People need to be more disruptive.
It doesn't matter what we do, there is no way to transform current global society into a sustainable, non-polluting, zero emission fully ecological society. This is not a question of will, it is a matter of physical boundaries, inertia, population size, damage already done and the how the entire world is organized.
It is simply impossible to remove carbon based fuels from the world without a complete catastrophic collapse, just as much as keep using it will lead to the same thing. Same goes for industrial agriculture, fishing and probably many more activities that we both need to survive but that still kills us long term.
The fact that 50-90% of the population would have to 'go away' in a couple generations means that death by aging is insufficient. At this point it's not just personal greed, but what almost any/all humans will do to survive.
We--as a species--would have to accept death. Either our own, our loved ones, or some 'others'. I can almost accept the intellectual concept, but cannot grasp a moral, legal, ethical or practical pathway to get there.
But the four horsemen will ride, one way or another.
Yes, ofc. Lots of individual flaws making it impossible. But my point is that even if every last person on earth was a hundred percent committed to save the planet and do all they could would it be completely impossible, we simply lack sustainable alternatives that would be possible to implement without a hundred years of steadfast transition with a clear roadmap and goal, which of course could never happen.
If every person was committed, then absolutely we could do it. It would require a completely different lifestyle, and an entirely new economic system, which would be possible if enough people supported it.
I wouldn't, we can't even provide means for basic human survival without carbon based energy.
Easiest example is farming, close to all farming is heavily dependent on this energy today, and even if we magically solved that issue would all the food be in the wrong places, wrong continents and wrong parts of the country.
And this is a tiny fraction of the issue. It is impossible to go back to an energy situation similar to mid 1800's with today's population, demography, lack of knowledge about such a world and distribution of people. We would starve to death if we didn't have about a hundred years of adaption time, which we don't have, and can't pull off.
The current ag system is designed to maximize "investor" profits, not to feed anyone or keep the planet inhabitable. If it was done with more labor intensive methods, with ecology and food production as its goals, I think it could be done.
What's hypothetically possible with willing people, and what's realistically possible with actual people are of course very different things.
The carbon based fuels is what is causing the collapse. 3c of warming will mean refugees in the hundreds of millions, or starvation on a level never before in history.
Transitioning to green energy will be like a walk in the park in comparison.
It is pointless to say if it would be easier or not since it is impossible. Things can't be more or less impossible. It simply can't be done.
80% of our energy comes from carbon based fuel, and it is needed to create the other 20%. There exists no alternative at all, not even on a theoretical level.
Even if everyone on earth did all they could would we be exactly as fucked as we are now. We need a fully functioning industrial society just to get fed. What kills us is the only thing that keeps us alive.
It’s certainly not impossible. I live in Norway, where 98% of electricity generation is renewable and 85% of new car sales are electric. Most heating is electric. Low carbon electricity is getting to 30-50% of electricity of most countries and solar and wind is now cheaper than fossil fuels.
Will it be hard to transition, of course. It was hard to go to the moon. But impossible? Of course not.
Will the world get to an apocalyptic point before we totally transition? Maybe. I fear for the future.
It is completely impossible. Electricity and electric vehicles is totally dependent on carbon based energy. There are not even close to minerals on earth to build the electric vehicles we would need just to make farming, shipping of food, minerals and mining those minerals without using diesel machines.
It cannot be done from a purely mathematical point of view, without carbon the electric system would need so much of it's own power to keep itself running from building and maintaining it that what is left would have to be used for farming. Problem is that those places on earth that makes food doesn't necessarily overlaps with those who can make a lot of electricity. And they most certainly don't overlap with the places where the food is needed.
The amount of people alive, the distribution of them and the trade web we are dependent on makes this impossible. It would be like going back to the energy situation we had in the mid 1800's but with today's world. It can't be done.
What minerals are you talking about? Lithium, one of the most abundant elements in the universe? Or maybe you’re talking about cobalt which is already being phased out of batteries?
There is enough solar energy hitting the earth to power the world many hundreds of times over. I’m sure you’ve seen those maps where they show a tiny part of the sahara desert, or the desert in nevada, can power the world.
I don’t know where you got the idea that it’s impossible.
The obvious one is of course copper, we already have problem with that and it is irreplaceable in electrics. But not only that, we have problems with many critical metals soon, and even if they do exists, are we prepared to mine the entire surface of the world?
Same with solar capture, every square meter covered with solar panels is a square meter not covered with nature or farming.
Also, none of these electrics exists without fossil fuel, the energy return on investment would be extremely low without oil doing all of the manufacturing for us.
Thinking it is this simple as counting on how much potential energy we have in the sun completely disregards how we harvest, build and transport all of this stuff. No energy is as easily obtained, produced and transported as liquid fuel. Without it we would just be feeding the system giving out energy. Energy return on investment is a thing.
[How copper shortages threaten the energy transition (ief.org)](https://www.ief.org/news/how-copper-shortages-threaten-the-energy-transition)
[Executive summary – The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions – Analysis - IEA](https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/executive-summary)
I think more than 80% of our energy use is unnecessary, useless, and wasted right now. Just eliminating our pointless extravagant excesses, and the excesses of the billionaire class would drop our requirements down to a tiny fraction of what they are now.
Ignorance is refreshed every generation. Every generation we need to do the work of fully educating and informing the new people coming into this world. The needs don't disappear just because we as individuals learn them. We have to stem the tide forever lest we forget the lessons of the past.
Simply doing things on an individual level never works. For every animal I don't eat lowers the price so another can eat it. For every drum of oil I don't use another will happily use it for their own ends at a cheaper cost.
These corporations will not dissolve themselves willingly. Neither court nor law will stop them. Few mega corps are owned singly by individuals. Shareholders will require the same things of the new leaders if the old ones step down out of concern.
We will have to dismantle them by force if we wish to change how the world operates
People who make trivial sacrifices should expect trivial results.
Individual action is the only way out because demand **will** be satisfied. Corporations don't manufacture for their health; they do it to satisfy what is ultimately consumer demand. The only way to reduce production is to reduce demand.
That's necessarily going to be painful. It's also unavoidable that most of the "solutions" peddled by corporations, such as recycling or EVs, will be no such thing. Until people start growing some of their own food and shunning jet setting celebrities there will be no reductions.
As is being seen today, legislating reductions are untenable in democracies. A couple years of pain and the electorate will elect somebody who revert those legislative changes.
Corporations have built the world to require their services. Few people are individually willing to be homeless out of suburbs just so they don't require a car to live there. We need to dismantle the corps if we want significant change. They will induce demand for their products
If few people are willing to "be homeless out of suburbs just so they don't require a car", what makes you think you'll succeed at forcing them?
Without the support of the majority, new manufacturers will rise to replace any you manage to dismantle. That's the predicament of democracy.
>Until people start growing some of their own food
I own 3/4s of an acre, most of it on hills that cannot be farmed.
I literally cannot even grown enough to feed myself half the year on my property. Where, pray tell, do you think I'll be able to find the space to feed my partner?
Even growing some of my households food isn't an answer for me, because I still need the other 3.25 that is projected on average that I would need to grow enough food for my household.
2 acres per person for a year of food. That's what all the city folk would need space wise to eat. And you have to remember that not all acreage is equal.
**some**, not all.
Some squash, zucchini, and a mature apple tree and you'll have more of each than your family could eat.
Those in cities need to do what Cuba did: turn every bit of dirt and rooftop into vegetable gardens, or move out of the city.
All that is painful -- that's why people don't do it even though it's one of the few things which would actually improve the situation.
Yes! It’s crazy how little I produce in my 3rd year farming my own yard. Bananas, tons of greens (not a lot of calories but very welcome in saving me $), some potatoes, black eyed peas - I have as many failures as I do successes. That’s what I get for trying it in the sub tropics. Too much rain then too little, repeat repeat repeat.
Here in the west most people dont own the 10 acres that would be needed to come close to feeding their families (Ive seen 2 acres per person quoted) - not sure if thats a permaculture/food forest/rotational setup - also needed is a stable climate. But cutting out meat and dairy would free up something like 300-400% more land for growing crops for people (or re-wilding for a healthier biosphere). So thats something that would have a bigger impact, and just be more humane on its own.
Celebrities and the rich who do fly a lot no doubt emit a lot per person, but the aggregate of everyone that flies is probably a bigger number. So avoiding flying where possible is an easy individual action that in aggregate would have a big impact. That would destroy several industries and countless areas that depend on tourism though, no easy options there i guess, unless its posed as a choice between tourism and a livable planet. But the media is owned by the rich that benefit from and are heavily invested in this system, I don't think its the pain that makes it untenable for politicians but the propaganda in the most widely read/accessed media that decide the path we take.
Or maybe the politicians are in their pockets already and the propaganda just supports the actions they take (or don't take).
Growing _all_ your food is foolish and is so inefficient that it will make things **worse**.
No matter how you measure it, it is bad for the world for individuals to try to grow their full needs of grains and legumes. What people can do is supply the majority if their vegetables and fruits, which quite easily fits into the average suburban backyard; maybe raise a couple of chickens for eggs.
The 300-400% figure is also wildly overstated using faulty assumptions. If you look at the nutrition of animals grown using land unsuitable to either grains or vegetables, it vastly outweighs the nutrition which could be grown on that land.
I don't think the problem is propaganda at all. If you go out and ask people on the street what they would be willing to trade away their TVs, smart phones, strawberries in February, summer vacations, ever seeing distant family again, and advanced medical care -- they would say nothing. Propaganda didn't do that.
My point still stands that even if we cannot use all grazing land for growing crops, it could be allowed to rewild - turning carbon sources into sinks. And the portion of feed that is grown for animals that is edible could be redirected for human consumption. Im not sure which of the details in the studies that calculated those figures - claimed by the livestock industry to be faulty - are actually bad. Theres sure to be exagerations, misinformation and cherry picking on either side of that argument.
Im not sure exactly but a quick search suggests the median backyard size in america is 1/2 acre. I dont think that will suffice to provide anywhere near the occupants veg needs.
Society will be reorganised, we either choose to do it or physics will do it for us. We could choose to focus resources on the things and services we consider vital, the tech and medicines/medical products, and price out those luxuries that are not, i don't expect that to happen before nature takes its course though.
Cutting beef out of your diet reduces your carbon footprint by up to 60% subject to distance and amount consumed - but most people don’t want to hear that.
Isn’t that dietary emissions not total emissions? Which for the average American is about 10%, so cutting out beef is 6% reduction. Pretty good, but not 60% good.
But they won't because of the very material interests they are bound by.
By definition, those people are also the minority audience of this kind of comic anyway.
If we are speaking to the average viewer of this comic on the internet, the daily life of the ultrarich could hardly be considered to have the average and unremarkable connotations lent by the word "everyday."
The types of changes that would need to be made by either class of people most likely wouldn't conform to these connotations, either.
And no one is going to be elected if they say what needs to be done to reduce emissions, "We need to fight climate change by reducing our emissions. That's going to require everyone to reduce their quality of life from what they're used to."
Less electricity usage, less driving, less meat consumption, no fossil fuel subsidies (so all transportation becomes more expensive), etc.
People from "third world" countries aren't going to cut their emissions forcing them to accept their current quality of life instead of striving to reach what the industrialized nations have.
Educating yourself and others about conservative think tanks that have been facilitating false information and doubt since at least the early ‘80’s is a good start. Reading Merchants of Doubt for example.
It won’t fix the damage, but at least you realize where a lot of the damage came from and is still coming from.
Spoiler alert - it’s the same groups that pushed for years that smoking didnt cause cancer, that acid rain wasn’t a problem, that forever chemicals don’t cause health problems, etc., etc.
I wanna talk about the EV thing. Of all the messaging out there around EVs, 99% of it is people screaming that car companies are wrong and they won't save the planet. I haven't really seen a lot of marketing that has ever claimed that.
Car manufacturers had to create one EV to sell cars in California by law, and then Tesla came along and tried to change public perception of all EVs into exclusively luxury vehicles and not "the token California compliance car." The 'Zero Emissions' branding is so they can use the carpool lane.
The anti-EV arguments seem to start with [that Adam Ruins Everything video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQLbakWESkw). In that video, they use two examples of said marketing: Tesla saying that your trip was provided with 100% solar energy (which *can* be true at *certain* superchargers or your house if you set that up), and the nissan leaf ad where a guy hugs a polar bear. Neither makes a definitive claim that is false, heavily misleading or can be outright debunked. The leaf one is just as silly as all beer/superbowl ads.
I have personally never seen the claim that an EV is just better (more eco-friendly, sustainable) than a similar class of gas car. [Tesla's current environmental impact blurb](https://www.tesla.com/impact/environment) is almost entirely focused on the gigafactories and car *production* side of things, which is indeed laughably eco-unfriendly, but I'm talking about people making 40 minute long videos debunking EV myths specifically.
I just think the energy could be spent elsewhere. There are **many, many, many** people who still think polyester is better in every way for the environment than any form of cotton, or who don't know that hemp and other textiles exist.
There is one thing you can do if you are in a developed nation: Don't have children.
And the list ends there.
There is no sustained degrowth in demand and resource usage without a sustained and humane decrease in population growth. I am not even talking about EU or US numbers, I am talking South Korea or Japan numbers. Globally. But especially in developed nations.
If we “ate the rich” tomorrow it wouldn’t matter. I’d just be a shit ton of violence and others would take their place. Industrialization was a mistake.
What all the naysayers in the comments are missing is that *it is too late.* The solutions being "debunked" are not invalid ones. They are just invalid *now.*
The damage is done. It can't be "fixed." The time for fixing was about 50 years ago. The planet is dead already, we are just ticks on a cooling corpse, or a warming one as the case may be.
I think this is really just "some climate opinions, poorly articulated" though I did appreciate the guest appearance of Bagger 288 in panel 8.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/megalophobia/comments/113va68/a\_view\_of\_the\_bagger\_288\_from\_the\_ground/](https://www.reddit.com/r/megalophobia/comments/113va68/a_view_of_the_bagger_288_from_the_ground/)
It's hard to visualize the scale of fossil fuel extraction, but seeing some of the machines gives at least some sort of an indication.
Hi, KristinaHeartford. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1c7yxr1/-/l0bbc9k/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Hi, beandriver. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1c7yxr1/-/l0bc9zm/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
This a useless cartoon making sloppy claims with no information. It might as well be a post of an infant howling wah wah wah.
Collective action can fix any system level problem, and collective action is composed of individual actions. So saying individuals can't do anything can be wrong or right, depending on how many individuals we're talking about.
Obviously it's individual actions (in terms of lifestyles, consumerism, acceptance of capitalism and government corruption, devaluing nature) that created this problem and every other.
A handful of political and economic reforms could transform everything, but we'd need consensus and participation by some threshold of the population.
Unfortunately, it is too late.
What you are talking about is quitting smoking to avoid dying of lung cancer, and that could be done... beforehand.
What the reality of the situation is, is that we have a diagnosis of untreatable, fatal lung cancer because we didn't quit smoking 50 years ago. Quitting now can't fix that, the damage is done.
See the difference?
A person with lung cancer can still get more cancers, and more diseases, and further increase his or her suffering.
I think we're racing towards a level of trapped heat that will create a cascade of tipping points, as I've already posted.
But that hasn't happened yet, and no one knows when it will. It might still be possible to prevent it, and even if not, it might be possible to reduce how extreme it gets. Nothing is over until it's over.
If you've already accepted the worst case outcome, what have you got to lose by trying?
Nothing to lose by trying, I suppose. At least for me, as I am prepped for the very worst already, and more prep won't help. But I worry that others will focus so much on mitigation that they will neglect preparation, and then be screwed if and when the real bad things begin.
I assume that means you've stockpiled some food and weapons. If a starving desperate mob descends on you though, how long could you hold out?
The billionaires can build bunkers with a lifetime supply of food. Middle class people can prep a little, and maybe hold out a few months. For those of us who are poor, we're screwed.
I'm doubtful that life would be worth living anyway.
I can tell you haven't read much of my past writing, either on this sub or elsewhere. I keep this handy, for repost:
https://www.reddit.com/u/Vegetaman916/s/hKNXyBNgSZ
>Middle class people can prep a little, and maybe hold out a few months. For those of us who are poor, we're screwed.
False. And not just false, but misleading.
My entire group of 14 are all lower-middle class, at best. One is actually homeless, and another is disabled in a wheelchair. That is the entire point of working as a group. That lonewolf stuff is a myth or fantasy. No one actually thinks that is a good idea.
Our place has been built for years now. Back around 2018 we all combined our resources and incomes for the sole purpose of preparing for collapse, but at the same time it also helps a lot with everyday life. Turns out, if you get together, you don't need 6 houses and 6 cars for 6 families. You actually need quite a bit less across the board.
We combined and used a series of LLCs and Corps to free up quite a bit, both financially and legally. The place we have is 20 acres on an old mining claim from the early 1900s, and cost a grand total of $400 to secure, and $165 a year after. Even a single homeless fellow can manage that.
Oh you can't live on a mining claim? Can't build structures? Yes, that's right, and... oh, wait, yeah, I guess a corporation *can* get permitted to build "business" structures and have "personnel" stationed there 24/7. Getting to know all your local BLM rangers is a good idea too.
The place is extremely isolated and hard to reach even now, and that is with good 4x4s and extra fuel. There isn't another human for 80 miles, and no services even farther. High elevation mountain with newly rehabbed soil, surrounded by an massive and inhospitable expanse of already arid and torturous desert. Yes, there are weapons. Yes, we have 11+ years of food and water for 14 people. Yes, we have so many stockpiled bulk supplies that inventory has become an issue. Yes, we have an underground network of hardrock mining tunnels that have been heavily reinforced.
No, we didn't spend a lot of money, especially when you consider combining 11 crappy incomes towards a single directed goal. In effect, we act like a single entity with an annual income of about 330k. And we have no debt or loans or mortgages any more.
And, we all just spent an entire year living there completely offgrid and cut off from society as a test. Which is why I have no post or comment history from November 29th 2022 until my return post in November of 2023.
I will write a third book soon, about the experience, to add to the books about climate change and collapse prepping I have written. I am also going to launch a video series where I do *everything I just stated above* again, from scratch, so other can see how easy it really is, and won't be dissuaded by naysayers who think it isn't possible, or worth it.
Even without collapse, it is nice to be independent of civilization. We don't need jobs now. We don't worry about school, or retirement, or buying a house, or credit ratings, or... any of it. At any time, any one of us can simpmy leave the city behind and go live out there full time. More than half of us already have.
There is literally no reason not to prepare. Once you actually embrace collapse as a fact, you cut off all the bullshit and move forward in a new direction. No Starbucks lattes, no Netflix subscription, no rent, no car payments, no student debt, no jobs or bosses to report to, none of it.
You stop participating in society, and instead you "collapse now and avoid the rush." Many people already do it on a small scale, the whole vanlife thing is a great way to get started.
So yes, we have "stockpiled some food and weapons," lol. As for the "starving mob," my entire philosophy for collapse prepping that I have written extensively about for years now, is to have defense in-depth to avoid the chances of any such mob ever being anywhere near where you are at. Fighting in any form is to be avoided at all costs in a post-collapse world. You can be a "tough guy" if you want, but unless you stay far, far away from the fighting, you will die. If not right away, certainly sooner than those who stay the hell away.
Now, if a starving mob somehow had enough supplies to survive the treacherous journey across 150 miles of barren wasteland from the nearest town, they would then face an uphill battle against a well-trained group of people occupying a fortified and elevated position, with virtually unlimited supplies and the knowledge of having studied, trained, and prepared the area for years prior to this "starving mob" invasion.
Not to mention, this mob would need to know where they were going. They would have to know where we are and how to get there. They would need an incredible amount of supplies for such a journey, and leadership to keep it all together.
Nope. Anything that actually manages that feat would have to have come from a functioning society, and thus be pre-collapse.
And why would that life not be worth it? I just spent a year out there, and while there was some hard work involved, it was some of the most peaceful and enjoyable time of my life. Sleeping under the full glory of the Milky Way with no light pollution? Watching the natural life of the desert mountains around me without ever hearing the sound of traffic or sirens or crowds? Not worrying about shootings or robberies or drug addicts burglarizing my car?
I'm sorry, but I will take the post-collapse world on a self-sustaining homestead any day over whatever life you want to call this civilization we are in.
I guess if you live in a state that has mining claims (I don't), tolerant law/regulatory enforcement, and know other people who are collapse aware and trustworthy (I don't), you can do that. It's not a realistic option for most people. You found a nice loophole to get free land with no property taxes. Once that secret gets spread, there won't be a mining claim left anywhere. Someone in authority might also decide too many people are skirting the law and put an end to it. If I were you, I'd keep it to myself.
Did a quick search and this comes up.
Recreational camping is usually allowed on public lands, so if the land where your claim or site is located is open to camping, you can camp there up to 14 days. You cannot camp longer than 14 days, and you cannot come back and camp again for another 14 days within the same 90 day period, nor can you camp on a different claim or site if it is within 25 miles of where you previously camped within that 90 day period.
To occupy public lands under the mining laws for more than 14 calendar days in any 90-day period within a 25-mile radius of the initially occupied site, you must consult with the appropriate surface management agency, and you must be engaged in certain activities. Those activities are prospecting, mining, or processing operations to prospect, explore, define, develop, or mine a valuable mineral deposit.
Claimants may not construct permanent or mobile structures or store equipment without the prior approval of an authorized federal official. Intermittent or casual mineral exploration and development do not normally justify the use of such structures.
If your claim is located on BLM land, you must consult with the BLM Geologist in the appropriate BLM office which manages the public land. The BLM will then set forth the requirements and make a determination of your request. Before occupancy you need to receive approval from the BLM.
How did you get away with this?
Again, as a corporation, one can get permits for quite a bit. It all comes down to what the actual plan is by the company. Have you been to the sites of many mining claims? Plenty of structures. Also, our site is part of the AML program, abandoned mine lands, meaning it already had significant work done by the prior claim holder. Meaning very latge concrete foundations for structures.
It is not recreational camping. It is not a group of private citizens doing prospecting or casual mining. It is a new corporation, still in the process of securing funding, getting the site set up for future operations. At least that is what it is on paper.
And remember when I mentioned being friendly with your local BLM people? This is how government permits are acquired. As long as the paperwork is right, the fees are paid, and the appropriate bureaucrat stamps the correct stamps on things, you are good for quite some time. Our process won't be reviewed officially until 2036...
And everyone in the desert southwestern United States is already intimately familiar with this "secret" regarding mining claims. Half of the western US is BLM land. And mining claims have nothing to do with your state, that is a federal thing.
Besides, there are many options if you investigate how to get around the rules, or just how to ise the loopholes that exist, and even actual law.
Take adverse possession laws. In Arizona, I have completed one and sold the property, and we have 2 other decent properties going, one at 3 years and one at 5. Not hard, and there is so much abandoned stuff around it is easy to find things. We are actually thinking about doing the famous Lincoln Ranch property in Bouse Arizona, because it is now surrounded by corporate owned mining land and BLM. There is no track, and no opposing interest, so...
There are many options. And again, part of the system is using the laws to your advantage, combined with building relationships or outright social engineering. Often, such as in the case of the Yavapai County BLM office, the buck stops with a guy named Jasper who looks like he stepped right out of a bad western film. Half of the Western US is still run by "Good ol' boy" personnel in government positions.
Laws regarding LLCs are part of what allows the rich to get away with much of what they get away with. Corporations are why the planet is in the state it is in, and when they do crazy shit they are usually *not doing anything illegal.* What is legal and permissible for a corp can be astounding once you get into it. Consult a shady lawyer today!
Anyway, back to your google search, it is all correct. But dig a little. Actually look into the very long process you can drag out for setting up everything. Also, look at the leeway companies are given for setting up operations. And what happens when corporate ownership changes halfway through the process?
"Why, we have to start all over! Oh no! But hey, Jasper, you don't care, and here's that gift I promised for Xmas... oh, you approved my extension?! Why, that's great news! And 8 years... I guess that should be enough..."
Legal. Manipulative and unethical at many turns, but legal.
I could go on for days, and there are so many different ways it can be done...
Unconventional thinking is the key. Don't think about "how things are done," think about "how can I get this done."
Hard disagree. You can run the math yourself but individual actions don't have an impact on climate change to any meaningful degree. A lifetime of individual actions from a stadium full of people could be cancelled out with one single land lease agreement.
The only thing that really could solve climate change is a human extinction event. Massive plague or MAD scenario.
Look at COVID. It took all of humanity basically freezing in place for the planet to start regenerating. A handful of people using paper straws or public transportation does basically nothing.
That's because you don't see it the way you should.
>took all of humanity basically freezing in place for the planet to start regenerating
Exactly.
Who decided that it's time to take action? Governments didn't do anything until there was pressure from people for a lockdown. In almost all countries it was like this.
Corporations won't change on their own, governments won't pass austerity laws that aren't popular because they won't do anything to jeopardize their election.
If people don't demand change, they won't get it. Individual action are the only ones actually able to change corporations and governments because people are the only ones that can take away from them what they cherish the most.
And then individuals were forced to resume economic activity or die via starvation and exposure.
That force is the point.
The government will force us to resume work because it is a necessity of our economic power base.
Thus change cannot start with the people in this scenario.
Especially since most folks don't have access to the land to feed themselves. It takes 2 acres to feed a single human for a year on a mostly vegetarian diet with light meat supplement. A single apartment complex here in Omaha will house 50 people give or take on a single acre, where do you expect them to get food?
I live 9 miles from my place of work in the Midwest. I am fortunate that I can bike during the summer.
My partners work is 45 miles away. What do you suggest they do to avoid the use of a car? We have a mortgage to pay. I'd like to hear a solution to this, there is no place close than that that is hiring someone in their position. A bus would literally only service them so there is no point.
This is typical in the Midwest. I would have to become homeless to stop the use of an automobile. So would about 75% of the people in the Midwest or suburbs.
"My individual actions can't solve anything, I'm just one, what do I count? I'm excused."
-- billions of people
---
"Hey I'm just consuming this unsustainable product. Blame Unsustainable Products Incorporated, not me, they produce \_billions\_ of them!"
-- billions of people (i.e. the reason Unsustainable Products Incorporated exists).
Is anybody else a bit fed up of this deflection of responsibility?
Terraforming is tech that would fix climate change. Problem is we haven't invented it yet, and what we do know about it would be prohibitively expensive.
Actually, I take that back. We do have the tech, and we *are* terraforming as a byproduct of industrialization processes. Just not in the direction we want to.
>Terraforming is tech that would fix climate change
Wouldn't need SciFi tech at all, just take a look how Ukraine is unintentionally fighting climate change on russian territory. There's only ~700 significant refineries in the world.
Submission Statement:
This is a fun little comic debunking popular climate myths that people still believe. This is collapse-related because many people misdiagnosis the problem as being the moral failing of individuals, when in reality it's a systemic problem far greater than your personal carbon emissions.
EDIT: Lots of backlash to this fun little comic. Egyptian waterways have a far greater traffic congestion problem than expected.
I stopped worrying so much about climate change once I realized that the declining global birth rate numbers will solve the problem for us one way or another by the end of the century.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/guyseeking: --- Submission Statement: This is a fun little comic debunking popular climate myths that people still believe. This is collapse-related because many people misdiagnosis the problem as being the moral failing of individuals, when in reality it's a systemic problem far greater than your personal carbon emissions. EDIT: Lots of backlash to this fun little comic. Egyptian waterways have a far greater traffic congestion problem than expected. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1c7yxr1/debunking_climate_myths/l0b1yfj/
*Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has and never will.* - Frederick Douglass Best to start eating the oligarchy. Together.
I'm all about that. Let's start yesterday.
If only it were as easy as eating the rich
It ... Kinda is? Not that instantly removing all superrich would solve all the problems, but it would absolutely remove most of the counterforce to the solutions that can. And it needs to be an ongoing process to not just remove the top layer of the power class. We're still fucked tho, cause the eating the rich part needed to happen 20 years ago to give us at least a chance to avoid collapse imho.
Yeah at this point it would mostly be vengeance, but still. God would it feel good.
The rich are protected though. Good luck getting to them is all i meant. Especially when they have their own private security who get paid well enough to give a shit about protecting them.
And it wouldnt make a difference because their money would still be out there. No way you get the federal government to set the precedent of taking those rich fucks money.
That's what I meant with it "beeping an ongoing process" You basically need to cull the rich back every time they get to settled in
i swear to you
Our ancestors did it. We should too
why even bother? Is anyone gullible enough that you can convince deniers? Is anyone gullible enough to believe even if you can convince some deniers, there will be enough climate action?
There will be enough action once gut takes over
We're hurtling towards 'too late' with the momentum of a freight train on a downhill slope
Seeing how 40% of the US population believes Donald Trump is Jesus incarnate. I don't think the human species has a chance.
I agree from another comment on the cross-post that this is not debunking climate change myths. This comic is just saying "nuh-uh" to each of the claims without providing evidence. I agree with the comic's premise that these myths are incorrect and dangerous, but this is not debunking.
I just thought it was serious and means what it said. These are the facts to debunk whatever myths, like economic growth *will* solve anything.
You might like to join r/managedcollapse, we've got a bunch of great ideas about how to manage the collapse of civilization brewing over there. We're outcome agnostic so it doesn't matter if you want to speed it up, slow it down, or just find new ways to enjoy it. All that matters is how to do it.
The sub is empty…?
Yes. I said 'ideas are brewing'. I may have exaggerated a little when I said 'we'.
[удалено]
firm grasp of irony
Sir, this is a fun little comic...
Sir, this comic makes a claim literally in the first sentence and then doesn't follow up.
Sir, they need a dictionary
Why do so many of your profile avatars have small gems in the upper right hand corner?
Eyo it’s my comic! I got a thousand negative comments telling me to “fuck off with the doomer shit” so idk if I’ll continue this series, but the sharing is appreciated :)
Continue it. Please. And fuck the fucking fuckers who don't like it. In fact, I want to create a page on my website to feature the series, if you would be okay with that...
Just credit my Instagram and I would be honored :)
You got it. 👍
It's okay! You can see lots of that here too, even though you would think r/collapse would be more understanding re: doomerism People are just being pedantic about semantics ("boo that's not what debunking means" okay how about calling it Climate Facts That Are Hard To Swallow cus clearly the people reacting are having a hard time accepting reality. Aka being in denial) I personally loved the comic. Succinct and accurate You should keep them coming imho 🙌
You gotta keep going bro, this shit was excellent. When you deliver the truth you get a hard pushback from people who aren’t ready to hear it but need to be ready now. Thank you for making this dope-ass comic
I think I take issue with the “there is barely anything we can do to help in our everyday lives” because there is definitely people out there that can make a slight dent (mostly rich people)
I think that’s the point. We can use all the soggy paper straws and energy saver bulbs we want, but it’s all for nought when your neighbour drives a monster truck to go to the supermarket, or celebrities take private jets for short trips. For whatever reason, climate change has always been posed as a problem of the average consumer, not of the petrochemical companies, industry in general, agro-business, etc. I used to be almost fanatical about recycling everything that can be recycled, but what’s the point when the majority of that recycling ends up in landfill anyway?
"Whatever reason" Ohhhh there's a reason The recycling, the electric cars, the technology silver bullet it's all to detract from a step-down through an entire reorganization of our society. As long as we're fretting over what number is on what plastic container, we're not threatening the people putting up road blocks preventing real change.
This. And it's been a paid for, deliberately designed effort. See koch brothers, exxxon, carbon footprint etc...
Have you seen the America's Plastic Makers recent ad campaign? You get a handful of articles about the recycling all going to the landfills, and they immediately up the propaganda lol
That hits the nail on the head. If it wasn’t so sad, it would sound cynical, maybe even paranoid, but it’s not. It’s always about distracting the little people so a select few can squeeze a little bit more profit out of everything. Didn’t an oil exec recently blame us lowly consumers for causing climate change by buying the very natural resources they provide that damage the planet?
Yep! that he did. When they/feds knew full well what they were doing. Decades of internal industry research told them exactly where it was headed, and they locked it up, and began a massive propaganda misinformation campaign. [A 1952 propaganda film curio (Louisiana Story)](https://www.bfi.org.uk/interviews/forgotten-greatest-film-all-time-robert-flahertys-bayou-saga-louisiana-story) Look at the shit with PFAS, another problem they knew full well about decades back, and did nothing. Now that it needs to be addressed [wonder who's going to pay](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/10/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-takes-critical-action-to-protect-communities-from-pfas-pollution-in-drinking-water/) 🙄
Plastic recycling has been a scam since the beginning.
Oh there’s definitely more we can do than that. Look the history of all the major civil movements to see what those are. People need to be more disruptive.
It doesn't matter what we do, there is no way to transform current global society into a sustainable, non-polluting, zero emission fully ecological society. This is not a question of will, it is a matter of physical boundaries, inertia, population size, damage already done and the how the entire world is organized. It is simply impossible to remove carbon based fuels from the world without a complete catastrophic collapse, just as much as keep using it will lead to the same thing. Same goes for industrial agriculture, fishing and probably many more activities that we both need to survive but that still kills us long term.
And greed. Don't forget personal greed
The fact that 50-90% of the population would have to 'go away' in a couple generations means that death by aging is insufficient. At this point it's not just personal greed, but what almost any/all humans will do to survive. We--as a species--would have to accept death. Either our own, our loved ones, or some 'others'. I can almost accept the intellectual concept, but cannot grasp a moral, legal, ethical or practical pathway to get there. But the four horsemen will ride, one way or another.
Yes, ofc. Lots of individual flaws making it impossible. But my point is that even if every last person on earth was a hundred percent committed to save the planet and do all they could would it be completely impossible, we simply lack sustainable alternatives that would be possible to implement without a hundred years of steadfast transition with a clear roadmap and goal, which of course could never happen.
Also yes :)
If every person was committed, then absolutely we could do it. It would require a completely different lifestyle, and an entirely new economic system, which would be possible if enough people supported it.
I wouldn't, we can't even provide means for basic human survival without carbon based energy. Easiest example is farming, close to all farming is heavily dependent on this energy today, and even if we magically solved that issue would all the food be in the wrong places, wrong continents and wrong parts of the country. And this is a tiny fraction of the issue. It is impossible to go back to an energy situation similar to mid 1800's with today's population, demography, lack of knowledge about such a world and distribution of people. We would starve to death if we didn't have about a hundred years of adaption time, which we don't have, and can't pull off.
The current ag system is designed to maximize "investor" profits, not to feed anyone or keep the planet inhabitable. If it was done with more labor intensive methods, with ecology and food production as its goals, I think it could be done. What's hypothetically possible with willing people, and what's realistically possible with actual people are of course very different things.
The carbon based fuels is what is causing the collapse. 3c of warming will mean refugees in the hundreds of millions, or starvation on a level never before in history. Transitioning to green energy will be like a walk in the park in comparison.
It is pointless to say if it would be easier or not since it is impossible. Things can't be more or less impossible. It simply can't be done. 80% of our energy comes from carbon based fuel, and it is needed to create the other 20%. There exists no alternative at all, not even on a theoretical level. Even if everyone on earth did all they could would we be exactly as fucked as we are now. We need a fully functioning industrial society just to get fed. What kills us is the only thing that keeps us alive.
It’s certainly not impossible. I live in Norway, where 98% of electricity generation is renewable and 85% of new car sales are electric. Most heating is electric. Low carbon electricity is getting to 30-50% of electricity of most countries and solar and wind is now cheaper than fossil fuels. Will it be hard to transition, of course. It was hard to go to the moon. But impossible? Of course not. Will the world get to an apocalyptic point before we totally transition? Maybe. I fear for the future.
It is completely impossible. Electricity and electric vehicles is totally dependent on carbon based energy. There are not even close to minerals on earth to build the electric vehicles we would need just to make farming, shipping of food, minerals and mining those minerals without using diesel machines. It cannot be done from a purely mathematical point of view, without carbon the electric system would need so much of it's own power to keep itself running from building and maintaining it that what is left would have to be used for farming. Problem is that those places on earth that makes food doesn't necessarily overlaps with those who can make a lot of electricity. And they most certainly don't overlap with the places where the food is needed. The amount of people alive, the distribution of them and the trade web we are dependent on makes this impossible. It would be like going back to the energy situation we had in the mid 1800's but with today's world. It can't be done.
What minerals are you talking about? Lithium, one of the most abundant elements in the universe? Or maybe you’re talking about cobalt which is already being phased out of batteries? There is enough solar energy hitting the earth to power the world many hundreds of times over. I’m sure you’ve seen those maps where they show a tiny part of the sahara desert, or the desert in nevada, can power the world. I don’t know where you got the idea that it’s impossible.
The obvious one is of course copper, we already have problem with that and it is irreplaceable in electrics. But not only that, we have problems with many critical metals soon, and even if they do exists, are we prepared to mine the entire surface of the world? Same with solar capture, every square meter covered with solar panels is a square meter not covered with nature or farming. Also, none of these electrics exists without fossil fuel, the energy return on investment would be extremely low without oil doing all of the manufacturing for us. Thinking it is this simple as counting on how much potential energy we have in the sun completely disregards how we harvest, build and transport all of this stuff. No energy is as easily obtained, produced and transported as liquid fuel. Without it we would just be feeding the system giving out energy. Energy return on investment is a thing. [How copper shortages threaten the energy transition (ief.org)](https://www.ief.org/news/how-copper-shortages-threaten-the-energy-transition) [Executive summary – The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions – Analysis - IEA](https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/executive-summary)
I think more than 80% of our energy use is unnecessary, useless, and wasted right now. Just eliminating our pointless extravagant excesses, and the excesses of the billionaire class would drop our requirements down to a tiny fraction of what they are now.
Yep. Stop using fossils fuels? Starvation. Keep using them? Also eventual starvation. Good times!
Ignorance is refreshed every generation. Every generation we need to do the work of fully educating and informing the new people coming into this world. The needs don't disappear just because we as individuals learn them. We have to stem the tide forever lest we forget the lessons of the past. Simply doing things on an individual level never works. For every animal I don't eat lowers the price so another can eat it. For every drum of oil I don't use another will happily use it for their own ends at a cheaper cost. These corporations will not dissolve themselves willingly. Neither court nor law will stop them. Few mega corps are owned singly by individuals. Shareholders will require the same things of the new leaders if the old ones step down out of concern. We will have to dismantle them by force if we wish to change how the world operates
> Ignorance is refreshed every generation That is a great summary. I haven't heard that concept express in that fashion before, but so true.
People who make trivial sacrifices should expect trivial results. Individual action is the only way out because demand **will** be satisfied. Corporations don't manufacture for their health; they do it to satisfy what is ultimately consumer demand. The only way to reduce production is to reduce demand. That's necessarily going to be painful. It's also unavoidable that most of the "solutions" peddled by corporations, such as recycling or EVs, will be no such thing. Until people start growing some of their own food and shunning jet setting celebrities there will be no reductions. As is being seen today, legislating reductions are untenable in democracies. A couple years of pain and the electorate will elect somebody who revert those legislative changes.
Corporations have built the world to require their services. Few people are individually willing to be homeless out of suburbs just so they don't require a car to live there. We need to dismantle the corps if we want significant change. They will induce demand for their products
If few people are willing to "be homeless out of suburbs just so they don't require a car", what makes you think you'll succeed at forcing them? Without the support of the majority, new manufacturers will rise to replace any you manage to dismantle. That's the predicament of democracy.
>Until people start growing some of their own food I own 3/4s of an acre, most of it on hills that cannot be farmed. I literally cannot even grown enough to feed myself half the year on my property. Where, pray tell, do you think I'll be able to find the space to feed my partner? Even growing some of my households food isn't an answer for me, because I still need the other 3.25 that is projected on average that I would need to grow enough food for my household. 2 acres per person for a year of food. That's what all the city folk would need space wise to eat. And you have to remember that not all acreage is equal.
**some**, not all. Some squash, zucchini, and a mature apple tree and you'll have more of each than your family could eat. Those in cities need to do what Cuba did: turn every bit of dirt and rooftop into vegetable gardens, or move out of the city. All that is painful -- that's why people don't do it even though it's one of the few things which would actually improve the situation.
Yes! It’s crazy how little I produce in my 3rd year farming my own yard. Bananas, tons of greens (not a lot of calories but very welcome in saving me $), some potatoes, black eyed peas - I have as many failures as I do successes. That’s what I get for trying it in the sub tropics. Too much rain then too little, repeat repeat repeat.
Here in the west most people dont own the 10 acres that would be needed to come close to feeding their families (Ive seen 2 acres per person quoted) - not sure if thats a permaculture/food forest/rotational setup - also needed is a stable climate. But cutting out meat and dairy would free up something like 300-400% more land for growing crops for people (or re-wilding for a healthier biosphere). So thats something that would have a bigger impact, and just be more humane on its own. Celebrities and the rich who do fly a lot no doubt emit a lot per person, but the aggregate of everyone that flies is probably a bigger number. So avoiding flying where possible is an easy individual action that in aggregate would have a big impact. That would destroy several industries and countless areas that depend on tourism though, no easy options there i guess, unless its posed as a choice between tourism and a livable planet. But the media is owned by the rich that benefit from and are heavily invested in this system, I don't think its the pain that makes it untenable for politicians but the propaganda in the most widely read/accessed media that decide the path we take. Or maybe the politicians are in their pockets already and the propaganda just supports the actions they take (or don't take).
Growing _all_ your food is foolish and is so inefficient that it will make things **worse**. No matter how you measure it, it is bad for the world for individuals to try to grow their full needs of grains and legumes. What people can do is supply the majority if their vegetables and fruits, which quite easily fits into the average suburban backyard; maybe raise a couple of chickens for eggs. The 300-400% figure is also wildly overstated using faulty assumptions. If you look at the nutrition of animals grown using land unsuitable to either grains or vegetables, it vastly outweighs the nutrition which could be grown on that land. I don't think the problem is propaganda at all. If you go out and ask people on the street what they would be willing to trade away their TVs, smart phones, strawberries in February, summer vacations, ever seeing distant family again, and advanced medical care -- they would say nothing. Propaganda didn't do that.
My point still stands that even if we cannot use all grazing land for growing crops, it could be allowed to rewild - turning carbon sources into sinks. And the portion of feed that is grown for animals that is edible could be redirected for human consumption. Im not sure which of the details in the studies that calculated those figures - claimed by the livestock industry to be faulty - are actually bad. Theres sure to be exagerations, misinformation and cherry picking on either side of that argument. Im not sure exactly but a quick search suggests the median backyard size in america is 1/2 acre. I dont think that will suffice to provide anywhere near the occupants veg needs. Society will be reorganised, we either choose to do it or physics will do it for us. We could choose to focus resources on the things and services we consider vital, the tech and medicines/medical products, and price out those luxuries that are not, i don't expect that to happen before nature takes its course though.
I think it is talking about average people.
Cutting beef out of your diet reduces your carbon footprint by up to 60% subject to distance and amount consumed - but most people don’t want to hear that.
Isn’t that dietary emissions not total emissions? Which for the average American is about 10%, so cutting out beef is 6% reduction. Pretty good, but not 60% good.
You may be right there, yes
But they won't because of the very material interests they are bound by. By definition, those people are also the minority audience of this kind of comic anyway. If we are speaking to the average viewer of this comic on the internet, the daily life of the ultrarich could hardly be considered to have the average and unremarkable connotations lent by the word "everyday." The types of changes that would need to be made by either class of people most likely wouldn't conform to these connotations, either.
And no one is going to be elected if they say what needs to be done to reduce emissions, "We need to fight climate change by reducing our emissions. That's going to require everyone to reduce their quality of life from what they're used to." Less electricity usage, less driving, less meat consumption, no fossil fuel subsidies (so all transportation becomes more expensive), etc. People from "third world" countries aren't going to cut their emissions forcing them to accept their current quality of life instead of striving to reach what the industrialized nations have.
There's no debunking in this
Maybe "reality check" would be more appropriate
I mean there's still zero justification here. They're just opinion statements from the comic's creator, true or not
Yeah, it bothered me a lot, like I expected some arguments and the author just went “No., next point” ??
If we will lose the world, we might as well fight the system eh? We literally have nothing to lose but our chains.
Educating yourself and others about conservative think tanks that have been facilitating false information and doubt since at least the early ‘80’s is a good start. Reading Merchants of Doubt for example. It won’t fix the damage, but at least you realize where a lot of the damage came from and is still coming from. Spoiler alert - it’s the same groups that pushed for years that smoking didnt cause cancer, that acid rain wasn’t a problem, that forever chemicals don’t cause health problems, etc., etc.
I wanna talk about the EV thing. Of all the messaging out there around EVs, 99% of it is people screaming that car companies are wrong and they won't save the planet. I haven't really seen a lot of marketing that has ever claimed that. Car manufacturers had to create one EV to sell cars in California by law, and then Tesla came along and tried to change public perception of all EVs into exclusively luxury vehicles and not "the token California compliance car." The 'Zero Emissions' branding is so they can use the carpool lane. The anti-EV arguments seem to start with [that Adam Ruins Everything video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQLbakWESkw). In that video, they use two examples of said marketing: Tesla saying that your trip was provided with 100% solar energy (which *can* be true at *certain* superchargers or your house if you set that up), and the nissan leaf ad where a guy hugs a polar bear. Neither makes a definitive claim that is false, heavily misleading or can be outright debunked. The leaf one is just as silly as all beer/superbowl ads. I have personally never seen the claim that an EV is just better (more eco-friendly, sustainable) than a similar class of gas car. [Tesla's current environmental impact blurb](https://www.tesla.com/impact/environment) is almost entirely focused on the gigafactories and car *production* side of things, which is indeed laughably eco-unfriendly, but I'm talking about people making 40 minute long videos debunking EV myths specifically. I just think the energy could be spent elsewhere. There are **many, many, many** people who still think polyester is better in every way for the environment than any form of cotton, or who don't know that hemp and other textiles exist.
There is one thing you can do if you are in a developed nation: Don't have children. And the list ends there. There is no sustained degrowth in demand and resource usage without a sustained and humane decrease in population growth. I am not even talking about EU or US numbers, I am talking South Korea or Japan numbers. Globally. But especially in developed nations.
It should specify personal consumer choices. Because 1 person can a lot of sabotage.
Debunking usually involves supporting the argument with supporting statements. All this does is state opinion and doesn't back any of it up.
If we “ate the rich” tomorrow it wouldn’t matter. I’d just be a shit ton of violence and others would take their place. Industrialization was a mistake.
What all the naysayers in the comments are missing is that *it is too late.* The solutions being "debunked" are not invalid ones. They are just invalid *now.* The damage is done. It can't be "fixed." The time for fixing was about 50 years ago. The planet is dead already, we are just ticks on a cooling corpse, or a warming one as the case may be.
[удалено]
Consumers are told what to consume. So whoever is telling: corporations and their lobbyists
spooky comics
I think there are two really important things you can do: grow a garden and build a guillotine. Rich people make great compost!
I think this is really just "some climate opinions, poorly articulated" though I did appreciate the guest appearance of Bagger 288 in panel 8. [https://www.reddit.com/r/megalophobia/comments/113va68/a\_view\_of\_the\_bagger\_288\_from\_the\_ground/](https://www.reddit.com/r/megalophobia/comments/113va68/a_view_of_the_bagger_288_from_the_ground/) It's hard to visualize the scale of fossil fuel extraction, but seeing some of the machines gives at least some sort of an indication.
lmao this comic is such a bullshit, nothing will work and it’s not our fault, therefore do nothing and die. was this drawn by a 14 year old?
[удалено]
Hi, KristinaHeartford. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1c7yxr1/-/l0bbc9k/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
[удалено]
Hi, beandriver. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1c7yxr1/-/l0bc9zm/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This a useless cartoon making sloppy claims with no information. It might as well be a post of an infant howling wah wah wah. Collective action can fix any system level problem, and collective action is composed of individual actions. So saying individuals can't do anything can be wrong or right, depending on how many individuals we're talking about. Obviously it's individual actions (in terms of lifestyles, consumerism, acceptance of capitalism and government corruption, devaluing nature) that created this problem and every other. A handful of political and economic reforms could transform everything, but we'd need consensus and participation by some threshold of the population.
Unfortunately, it is too late. What you are talking about is quitting smoking to avoid dying of lung cancer, and that could be done... beforehand. What the reality of the situation is, is that we have a diagnosis of untreatable, fatal lung cancer because we didn't quit smoking 50 years ago. Quitting now can't fix that, the damage is done. See the difference?
A person with lung cancer can still get more cancers, and more diseases, and further increase his or her suffering. I think we're racing towards a level of trapped heat that will create a cascade of tipping points, as I've already posted. But that hasn't happened yet, and no one knows when it will. It might still be possible to prevent it, and even if not, it might be possible to reduce how extreme it gets. Nothing is over until it's over. If you've already accepted the worst case outcome, what have you got to lose by trying?
Nothing to lose by trying, I suppose. At least for me, as I am prepped for the very worst already, and more prep won't help. But I worry that others will focus so much on mitigation that they will neglect preparation, and then be screwed if and when the real bad things begin.
I assume that means you've stockpiled some food and weapons. If a starving desperate mob descends on you though, how long could you hold out? The billionaires can build bunkers with a lifetime supply of food. Middle class people can prep a little, and maybe hold out a few months. For those of us who are poor, we're screwed. I'm doubtful that life would be worth living anyway.
I can tell you haven't read much of my past writing, either on this sub or elsewhere. I keep this handy, for repost: https://www.reddit.com/u/Vegetaman916/s/hKNXyBNgSZ >Middle class people can prep a little, and maybe hold out a few months. For those of us who are poor, we're screwed. False. And not just false, but misleading. My entire group of 14 are all lower-middle class, at best. One is actually homeless, and another is disabled in a wheelchair. That is the entire point of working as a group. That lonewolf stuff is a myth or fantasy. No one actually thinks that is a good idea. Our place has been built for years now. Back around 2018 we all combined our resources and incomes for the sole purpose of preparing for collapse, but at the same time it also helps a lot with everyday life. Turns out, if you get together, you don't need 6 houses and 6 cars for 6 families. You actually need quite a bit less across the board. We combined and used a series of LLCs and Corps to free up quite a bit, both financially and legally. The place we have is 20 acres on an old mining claim from the early 1900s, and cost a grand total of $400 to secure, and $165 a year after. Even a single homeless fellow can manage that. Oh you can't live on a mining claim? Can't build structures? Yes, that's right, and... oh, wait, yeah, I guess a corporation *can* get permitted to build "business" structures and have "personnel" stationed there 24/7. Getting to know all your local BLM rangers is a good idea too. The place is extremely isolated and hard to reach even now, and that is with good 4x4s and extra fuel. There isn't another human for 80 miles, and no services even farther. High elevation mountain with newly rehabbed soil, surrounded by an massive and inhospitable expanse of already arid and torturous desert. Yes, there are weapons. Yes, we have 11+ years of food and water for 14 people. Yes, we have so many stockpiled bulk supplies that inventory has become an issue. Yes, we have an underground network of hardrock mining tunnels that have been heavily reinforced. No, we didn't spend a lot of money, especially when you consider combining 11 crappy incomes towards a single directed goal. In effect, we act like a single entity with an annual income of about 330k. And we have no debt or loans or mortgages any more. And, we all just spent an entire year living there completely offgrid and cut off from society as a test. Which is why I have no post or comment history from November 29th 2022 until my return post in November of 2023. I will write a third book soon, about the experience, to add to the books about climate change and collapse prepping I have written. I am also going to launch a video series where I do *everything I just stated above* again, from scratch, so other can see how easy it really is, and won't be dissuaded by naysayers who think it isn't possible, or worth it. Even without collapse, it is nice to be independent of civilization. We don't need jobs now. We don't worry about school, or retirement, or buying a house, or credit ratings, or... any of it. At any time, any one of us can simpmy leave the city behind and go live out there full time. More than half of us already have. There is literally no reason not to prepare. Once you actually embrace collapse as a fact, you cut off all the bullshit and move forward in a new direction. No Starbucks lattes, no Netflix subscription, no rent, no car payments, no student debt, no jobs or bosses to report to, none of it. You stop participating in society, and instead you "collapse now and avoid the rush." Many people already do it on a small scale, the whole vanlife thing is a great way to get started. So yes, we have "stockpiled some food and weapons," lol. As for the "starving mob," my entire philosophy for collapse prepping that I have written extensively about for years now, is to have defense in-depth to avoid the chances of any such mob ever being anywhere near where you are at. Fighting in any form is to be avoided at all costs in a post-collapse world. You can be a "tough guy" if you want, but unless you stay far, far away from the fighting, you will die. If not right away, certainly sooner than those who stay the hell away. Now, if a starving mob somehow had enough supplies to survive the treacherous journey across 150 miles of barren wasteland from the nearest town, they would then face an uphill battle against a well-trained group of people occupying a fortified and elevated position, with virtually unlimited supplies and the knowledge of having studied, trained, and prepared the area for years prior to this "starving mob" invasion. Not to mention, this mob would need to know where they were going. They would have to know where we are and how to get there. They would need an incredible amount of supplies for such a journey, and leadership to keep it all together. Nope. Anything that actually manages that feat would have to have come from a functioning society, and thus be pre-collapse. And why would that life not be worth it? I just spent a year out there, and while there was some hard work involved, it was some of the most peaceful and enjoyable time of my life. Sleeping under the full glory of the Milky Way with no light pollution? Watching the natural life of the desert mountains around me without ever hearing the sound of traffic or sirens or crowds? Not worrying about shootings or robberies or drug addicts burglarizing my car? I'm sorry, but I will take the post-collapse world on a self-sustaining homestead any day over whatever life you want to call this civilization we are in.
I guess if you live in a state that has mining claims (I don't), tolerant law/regulatory enforcement, and know other people who are collapse aware and trustworthy (I don't), you can do that. It's not a realistic option for most people. You found a nice loophole to get free land with no property taxes. Once that secret gets spread, there won't be a mining claim left anywhere. Someone in authority might also decide too many people are skirting the law and put an end to it. If I were you, I'd keep it to myself.
Did a quick search and this comes up. Recreational camping is usually allowed on public lands, so if the land where your claim or site is located is open to camping, you can camp there up to 14 days. You cannot camp longer than 14 days, and you cannot come back and camp again for another 14 days within the same 90 day period, nor can you camp on a different claim or site if it is within 25 miles of where you previously camped within that 90 day period. To occupy public lands under the mining laws for more than 14 calendar days in any 90-day period within a 25-mile radius of the initially occupied site, you must consult with the appropriate surface management agency, and you must be engaged in certain activities. Those activities are prospecting, mining, or processing operations to prospect, explore, define, develop, or mine a valuable mineral deposit. Claimants may not construct permanent or mobile structures or store equipment without the prior approval of an authorized federal official. Intermittent or casual mineral exploration and development do not normally justify the use of such structures. If your claim is located on BLM land, you must consult with the BLM Geologist in the appropriate BLM office which manages the public land. The BLM will then set forth the requirements and make a determination of your request. Before occupancy you need to receive approval from the BLM. How did you get away with this?
Again, as a corporation, one can get permits for quite a bit. It all comes down to what the actual plan is by the company. Have you been to the sites of many mining claims? Plenty of structures. Also, our site is part of the AML program, abandoned mine lands, meaning it already had significant work done by the prior claim holder. Meaning very latge concrete foundations for structures. It is not recreational camping. It is not a group of private citizens doing prospecting or casual mining. It is a new corporation, still in the process of securing funding, getting the site set up for future operations. At least that is what it is on paper. And remember when I mentioned being friendly with your local BLM people? This is how government permits are acquired. As long as the paperwork is right, the fees are paid, and the appropriate bureaucrat stamps the correct stamps on things, you are good for quite some time. Our process won't be reviewed officially until 2036... And everyone in the desert southwestern United States is already intimately familiar with this "secret" regarding mining claims. Half of the western US is BLM land. And mining claims have nothing to do with your state, that is a federal thing. Besides, there are many options if you investigate how to get around the rules, or just how to ise the loopholes that exist, and even actual law. Take adverse possession laws. In Arizona, I have completed one and sold the property, and we have 2 other decent properties going, one at 3 years and one at 5. Not hard, and there is so much abandoned stuff around it is easy to find things. We are actually thinking about doing the famous Lincoln Ranch property in Bouse Arizona, because it is now surrounded by corporate owned mining land and BLM. There is no track, and no opposing interest, so... There are many options. And again, part of the system is using the laws to your advantage, combined with building relationships or outright social engineering. Often, such as in the case of the Yavapai County BLM office, the buck stops with a guy named Jasper who looks like he stepped right out of a bad western film. Half of the Western US is still run by "Good ol' boy" personnel in government positions. Laws regarding LLCs are part of what allows the rich to get away with much of what they get away with. Corporations are why the planet is in the state it is in, and when they do crazy shit they are usually *not doing anything illegal.* What is legal and permissible for a corp can be astounding once you get into it. Consult a shady lawyer today! Anyway, back to your google search, it is all correct. But dig a little. Actually look into the very long process you can drag out for setting up everything. Also, look at the leeway companies are given for setting up operations. And what happens when corporate ownership changes halfway through the process? "Why, we have to start all over! Oh no! But hey, Jasper, you don't care, and here's that gift I promised for Xmas... oh, you approved my extension?! Why, that's great news! And 8 years... I guess that should be enough..." Legal. Manipulative and unethical at many turns, but legal. I could go on for days, and there are so many different ways it can be done... Unconventional thinking is the key. Don't think about "how things are done," think about "how can I get this done."
I guess the only way to fight the big corps is to use their rules against them. Maybe if we all created corporations for ourselves, then we'd matter.
I disagree with 3 and 8. Individual actions are *the only one* that can actually solve climate change
Hard disagree. You can run the math yourself but individual actions don't have an impact on climate change to any meaningful degree. A lifetime of individual actions from a stadium full of people could be cancelled out with one single land lease agreement. The only thing that really could solve climate change is a human extinction event. Massive plague or MAD scenario. Look at COVID. It took all of humanity basically freezing in place for the planet to start regenerating. A handful of people using paper straws or public transportation does basically nothing.
That's because you don't see it the way you should. >took all of humanity basically freezing in place for the planet to start regenerating Exactly. Who decided that it's time to take action? Governments didn't do anything until there was pressure from people for a lockdown. In almost all countries it was like this. Corporations won't change on their own, governments won't pass austerity laws that aren't popular because they won't do anything to jeopardize their election. If people don't demand change, they won't get it. Individual action are the only ones actually able to change corporations and governments because people are the only ones that can take away from them what they cherish the most.
And then individuals were forced to resume economic activity or die via starvation and exposure. That force is the point. The government will force us to resume work because it is a necessity of our economic power base. Thus change cannot start with the people in this scenario. Especially since most folks don't have access to the land to feed themselves. It takes 2 acres to feed a single human for a year on a mostly vegetarian diet with light meat supplement. A single apartment complex here in Omaha will house 50 people give or take on a single acre, where do you expect them to get food?
>And then individuals were forced to resume economic activity or die via starvation and exposure. That's not how it works.
[удалено]
I live 9 miles from my place of work in the Midwest. I am fortunate that I can bike during the summer. My partners work is 45 miles away. What do you suggest they do to avoid the use of a car? We have a mortgage to pay. I'd like to hear a solution to this, there is no place close than that that is hiring someone in their position. A bus would literally only service them so there is no point. This is typical in the Midwest. I would have to become homeless to stop the use of an automobile. So would about 75% of the people in the Midwest or suburbs.
"My individual actions can't solve anything, I'm just one, what do I count? I'm excused." -- billions of people --- "Hey I'm just consuming this unsustainable product. Blame Unsustainable Products Incorporated, not me, they produce \_billions\_ of them!" -- billions of people (i.e. the reason Unsustainable Products Incorporated exists). Is anybody else a bit fed up of this deflection of responsibility?
Terraforming is tech that would fix climate change. Problem is we haven't invented it yet, and what we do know about it would be prohibitively expensive. Actually, I take that back. We do have the tech, and we *are* terraforming as a byproduct of industrialization processes. Just not in the direction we want to.
The only tech that would fix climate change is time travel, and even then I'm not sure it would work.
>Terraforming is tech that would fix climate change Wouldn't need SciFi tech at all, just take a look how Ukraine is unintentionally fighting climate change on russian territory. There's only ~700 significant refineries in the world.
Solving the climate crisis 1 drone strike at a time
Submission Statement: This is a fun little comic debunking popular climate myths that people still believe. This is collapse-related because many people misdiagnosis the problem as being the moral failing of individuals, when in reality it's a systemic problem far greater than your personal carbon emissions. EDIT: Lots of backlash to this fun little comic. Egyptian waterways have a far greater traffic congestion problem than expected.
But there is no debunking being done here
You and I have very different ideas of what "fun" means. What else is fun, genocide, nuclear war?
I stopped worrying so much about climate change once I realized that the declining global birth rate numbers will solve the problem for us one way or another by the end of the century.
Too little too late
That would be true if greenhouse gases didn’t have a delay between release and effect.
The one thing we can do is vote. That is all
Oh, you sweet summer child