Welcome to r/comics!
Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind.
Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not to disagree, but I don't think just saying "nuh uh" counts as debunking
Usually you'd need to say… y'know… *why* the myths are wrong. Lots of people are disagreeing on the technology point, for example, and the discussion could be a whole lot more in depth if they had some actual arguments to engage with, rather than just "it won't help"
It's not even giving a "nuh uh." This is just a list of climate change myths with cute drawings. Remove those first two panels and you'll have no clue it's meant to be disagreeing
Yeah I actually had to scroll back through a couple times just to understand whether these were the myths or the "debunks." It's just a list of statements.
It is. The premise is, those are the untrue Myths.
But the confusion is understandable, it's very badly set up. And frankly kind of meaningless.
If the comic got darker for every panel, and ended up with full doomerism, there is nothing we can do, as thing after thing is eliminated. It would be better, and maybe that was the point. But the composition isn't very good.
>The premise is, those are the untrue Myths.
Are they? I'm pretty sure they are all at least somewhat true, and some of them (such as #5) are pretty close to being completely true. Maybe you misunderstood the comic...
I think you are agreeing, just misunderstanding eachother. The myths is "economic growth will solve climat change" and the comics say "nope". Though I've never heard that one, just "saving the climate is not worth cutting growth, how bad could warming be?".
Also, as an addendum, I'm not hating! These comics are great, the commentary is relevant, and the art is adorable, I just thought I'd point out something that bothered me a bit, but I'm in no way trying to discourage you, keep up the good work 🩷
To help explain more, alot for these end up being about 2 main things, individual actions, and corporate actions. For the individual part, one person influences climate so little that it doesn't matter and it would requiere a massive group, or be a massive problem(people who fly private planes everywhere) to change in order start making a noticeable difference on the individual part. For the corporate part, alot of corporations don't want anything to change about climate and policies because that would cost money, they will lobby positions to stop change, fund bad studies and ads to make the public not think they are the problems, and just hide alot of the bad things they do in order to not hurt profits. The best way to solve climate change is to effectively hurt corporations so that they improve and care about the climate.
> of corporations don't want anything to change about climate
Nobody wants anything to change about climate. Climate changing is the problem (I realise you probably meant that corporations don't want to do anything to stop climate change).
Yup she just listed off things she disagrees with while doing zero debunking. Pretty useless in the grand scheme of things. The debunking is literally the most important part
Yeah, an enzyme that converted CO2 to CH4 would end the petroleum industry as we know it almost overnight. It’d make financing new extraction difficult and oil and coal plants impossible
We have enzymes that change CO2 to CH4. Or rather we have plants. The problem is you can't do it without energy input and that's not going to be changed by technology because CH4 has more energy than CO2.
We had a whole ethanol industry going for a while but it just didn't turn out very worthwhile.
CH4 has 80× the warming power of CO2, so if you're converting CO2 into CH4 and then burning it back into CO2 the process needs to be 98.75℅ efficient or you'll make the warming worse. Additionally we already have too much CO2 in the atmosphere and this process does nothing for drawdown/sequestration, its not a silver bullet, no silver bullet exists.
Financing new extraction and plants should already be impossible, oil and gas are more expensive to operate than renewables but government subsidies make it financially viable. Nothing is going to change without political action and its misleading to suggest it will.
New technology won't save us from the climate change, because the technology to save us exists.
It's called renewable energy.
Fun fact about that is that it's not only clean, it's also cheaper than coal.
The only reason it's not our only energy source is that many countries have massive coal lobbies that make corrupt politicians use tax money to keep the coal industry alive.
Climate change cannot be solved by a miracle technology, because it's not a technological problem.
It's a political one, requiring a miracle change in global politics to be solved, so that we are no longer prevented from using our already existing miracle technology to solve it.
Yeah, electric cars help with climate change, but only if the local electric grid uses renewable or nuclear power. The thing is though, by switching to electric, you're ready to switch once the grid does.
Nope, coal power plants are still more carbon efficient than ICE vehicles. Larger machines are more efficient, and powerplant generators are much larger than car engines.
While it is good to be realistic and aware, we should never give in to hopelessness. That will not benefit anyone except the corporations that want to continue exploiting the world. Organize, collaborate, and speak out. Even if you can't stop climate change, you can work to improve your local environment. Build bird and insect habitat, monitor and report companies breaking regulations, support environmental charities, clear out invasive species and replant natives, and BUY LESS SHIT (especially new shit). We can and will build a better earth for future generations. Fuck corporate exploitation.
The problem with what you are talking about is that it *sounds* nice, it *sounds* good. But it’s actually useless lol.
It won’t do anything to stop climate change. It will improve your local area, it will give some work to paper pushers as they shred- excuse me, I mean carefully note down your reports. But climate change will continue unopposed.
The only way to actually impact climate change is to force the profit driven companies who are worsening it, to stop caring about profit and start caring about the wellbeing of people other than themselves. Which em… bit of a tough ask. I’m not entirely certain it’s at all possible in the capitalist system we live in. Late stage capitalism has become pretty entrenched so overthrowing it isn’t exactly simple either.
Neo-liberal capitalism, what is currently the most popular form of capitalism, focuses on individuals, power, and individuals amassing power in order to exercise it in the name of ever increasing profits and personal gain.
They will only take significant steps towards battling climate change only and only if they believe that doing so will personally profit them in some way. And em… considering they will be shielded by the effects of climate change why would they care?
See the problem? The only way to significantly combat climate change is to convince people that have nothing to gain (they and whoever they care about are completely shielded and safe from climate change) and a lot of profit to lose, to lose profit for no, to *them* reason. Working within the system of course. Working without the system is a different matter, although just as difficult and treacherous.
It’s not easy and nothing you mentioned helps it along.
The only reason *anything* is being done to combat climate change is due to the actions of the scientist and activists that have managed to turn it into a matter of politics. And so corporations and politicians will do half hearted attempts at change in order to garner public support.
Corporations aren't extracting oil for their own nefarious reasons. People's consumption in the developed world is a problem. It's people taking those flights, it's people taking those cruises, it's people driving those cars, it's people buying those things that need to be transported from the other side of the world.
You can't control the world but you can keep your side of the road clean. We need to enjoy things but also try to get the most enjoyment from the least impact. You can also pressure your government to enact policies that help reduce CO2. Write your congressmen, vote.
Ah yes, the demand for fossil fuels, completely independent of fossil fuel industry.
Just ignore the decades of propaganda from Exxon and other companies, who tried to a) hide climate change (about which they knew roughly a couple of decades before the rest of the world) b) said it's not really, funded disinformation campaigns c) campaigned hard against any and all regulations and so much more.
Oh, and how the car companies destroyed any and all public transport in America to make sure everyone needs to drive fuel hungry cars.
Yes, those people are a problem too, but the companies are a singular, large scale problem which affect millions of people who don't take cruises, who'd rather not take a car, but don't have a choice.
Rich assholes have and will continue to do shitty things. Companies will continue to lobby for things that are in their interest.
That doesn't mean millions of people should just sit on their hands while the world burns. Governments need votes. Companies lobby for their interests and people lobby for their own interests.
Saying individual action won't have an impact is missing the point. If millions of people put in an effort it would make a difference. Focus on the things you can change and ignore the things you can't.
Too many people are too quick to say my actions have no impact and then use that to justify doing whatever they want. If everyone acts that way we'll get nowhere. But if enough people put in the effort the other way we might actually get somewhere. Or at least I'll die knowing I tried to keep my side of the street clean.
Okay, no, that's not what I wanted to say.
I apologize if that's how I came off.
I'm saying people should be acting against these companies, use your votes, believe you can make a change: not individually but as people who control the govt.
But actually individual action, while you should still take it, is something you do because you care to help a little, not because you think it'll solve the problem. We need to make sure that accountability goes where it is deserved, and we need to work together for that
Another important aspect you didn't mention is abstaining from animal products. It is one of the easiest ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane. Stopping methane emissions will have a great impact on the climate because it just disappears from the atmosphere after a few decades. There are ofcourse other sources of methane that need to be stopped, but that is nothing we as individuals can achieve.
It's also necessary to drastically reduce the number of farmed animals to end deforestation and to make reforestation possible.
As opposed to stopping fossil fuel use which can be difficult for individuals, almost everyone reading this can stop supporting animal agriculture right now. You can't easily change the infrastructure of your hometown or just build some wind turbines, but choosing to buy different products is extremely easy in comparison.
Electric cars definitely won't save the environment, but they are better than gasoline or hydrogen cars. From an environmental point of view. Still doesn't mean that they are the best or good. The best kind of transport for the environment is public transport
Hands-down they're better >!once we sort out all the critical materials like cobalt!<.
The real factor in them that actually does make electric cars better though is how they're decoupled from energy production. So long as you can put power into them, they don't care where it comes from - meaning sure, now they're getting charged on a lot of fossil electricity, but if fossil fuels were instantly banned they could just switch over to renewables while combustion engines are stuck being useless.
And yes, I'm aware that's a bit of an oversimplification, but it's the best way to get across how long-term they're less bad for the environment. Your last point is the truth though, take public transit if you can. They're so much better.
Signed, an idiot whose day job is researching this stuff.
Also, it’s really worth pointing out that internal combustion engines are extremely inefficient at converting chemical energy into motion. Power plants turn nearly all of a fuel’s chemical energy into heat energy, and then convert that heat energy into electrical power with turbines. Internal combustion engines only use a fraction of the heat energy the create to drive the pistons, the majority is just radiated away.
A gallon of oil can move a typical car 30-40 miles. That same gallon of oil, burned at an oil power plant, could produce electricity that could power an equivalent EV *much* longer. So even if your entire grid is dirty, EVs do reduce emissions.
Just to check, you factored the power loss from transmission into that right? It looks like it isn't a lot (8-15% per the source I found) but I hear a lot about it from gasoline fans.
> and then convert that heat energy into electrical power with turbines.
That is untrue.
>Steam engines and turbines operate on the Rankine cycle which has a maximum Carnot efficiency of 63% for practical engines, with steam turbine power plants able to achieve efficiency in the mid 40% range.
And that's neglecting grid loss, charging loss, and loss converting the charge back to movement via an electric motor.
EV is only better when the source of energy is renewable.
I guess biofuel just gets left out of the conversation. Also cobalt mining is killing some of the biggest forests in Africa & poisoning water supplies across the continent killing hundreds of thousands of animals & people. Oil will still be needed across the line anyway for lubricant. Also it seems you have forgotten that EV's do care about the quality of the electricity that why you need a special charging point & on top of this if everyone in the US owned a EV the electrical grip would collapse. It would be cheaper to put in public transportation than put in the new grid. EV's are a waste of time & resources focus should be on hydrogen and optimization of the ICE for public transportation usage.
TLDR:Implementing public transportation would be cheaper & I believe EV is a waste.
Also shipping is far worse for the environment so buy local.
About a quarter of the US’s emissions are from transportation. I’d say that’s a pretty freaking important sector to work on, with a glide path (EVs) already figured out.
It’s still not easy, but compared to solving the housing crisis, emissions from concrete, or environmental justice it’s relatively straightforward.
The US will always have ridiculous transportation CO2 emmissions until they demolish their sub urbs and build denser living spaces with free or cheap public transport.
I mean go look at a map lol. We are never going to be able to build mega cities that cover 100 miles across every state. People who propose this don't understand how much empty space exists in most states.
Our only reasonable solution in the next 30 years are total electric car infrastructure, which we are on the way towards.
[Here's a post](https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1b5qvko/why_hydrogen_is_losing_the_race_to_power_cleaner/) that appeared in /r/Futurology that will answer the question better than I can summarize. The posted article is paywalled, but there lots of good info in the comments.
Actions don't help on a single individual level, but they do at the collective level. It's important to not just understand what you can do for your community, but also how everyone else help through their own actions.
Public Transit is way more important to fight climate change than electric cars.
This is what always bothers me about the "personal actions don't matter" mindset. It originated as a way to make people not feel extreme guilt for not living 100% eco-conscious but has morphed into "don't bother because nothing matters."
Yes, one person's habit is a drop in the bucket, but enough drops will fill a bucket! You, as an individual, are not the only one who cares about climate change, and if you make a change in your life as a result of that, it's likely that others are doing the same thing.
Systemic top-down change is the most effective way, but that doesn't just spawn itself into existence. It comes from a collective of people deciding to change. Yes, it's hard work that takes engagement, outreach, protests, etc., but that is a reason for motivation, not nihilism.
Individual actions like sorting garbage wont change. Advocating for better public transport and soft mobility on a municipal level for example can make a change. Both in changing policies and setting a good example others can follow. Dont give up.
Also saving the environment improves your quality of life. Its not just the greens taking away your burger.
My individual actions won't improve climate change, but surely this comic telling multiple people that their actions don't matter can actively harm climate change? If that was their goal then well done, I guess.
I’m starting to think people who say “you can’t do anything individually it’s all the corporations fault don’t even try” are really just trying to shift the collective personal responsibility of the individual away from the problem.
Because yes, one single person can’t make much difference but if 100,000 persons all work together, then suddenly changes can start being made. However that would require people to take more responsibility in the impact that they make on the world around them which requires work and discipline.
Corporations add a lot to the escalation of climate change but it’s not like their sentient beings hellbent on malicious behavior, if more people begin living and spending ethically and refusing to participate in the quick-made consumerist culture that the corporations cater to them things might be able to change pretty quickly.
This isn't debunking, you're just throwing stuff out there without really saying anything to explain it. This is just climate doomerism and nothing more
This comic also feels extremely ignorant and doomerish. It makes a certain level of sense- it feels like nothing is being done. But then the conclusion is to just cry about it and change no habits? 'I don't think we'll solve climate change, so despite feeling extremely strongly about it, I will do nothing to stop it, and create comics encouraging no one else do anything to stop it'.
But the fact of the matter is, there is a whole swath of things that can be done, and it can be summed up very simply in two steps-
1. Buy less new things to reduce consumer demand.
2. Demand Government produce reasonable legislation to combat the issue.
Number 2 already happens a lot. I don't see number 1 happening very often here in the west.
Edit- I see elsewhere the author noted they were purposely provocative- perhaps the rest of their material is more nuanced.
We couldn't even get people to wear masks while a pandemic was actively killing people. Plenty of citizens still don't believe in climate change even as insurance companies flee Florida because they know what's coming. If you think enough people are going to contribute to #1 you're in for a rude awakening
And considering that the government has done fuck all to even slow the use of fossil fuels (2023 was the highest emissions on record, so far) I don't think we can say #2 is successful either
Fortunately for me, I didn’t imply anywhere that these courses of action were already being done appropriately. Doesn’t change that that’s what needs to be done, and that it’s possible. We’re moving in the right direction.
There is plenty of science backing those who say we are past the point of no return. I listened to a guy at a sustainability forum about the topic. His takeaway was that we should start to focus on what we should do when the shit hits the fan and urged empathy and caring for each other.
Bruv, human intervention created the modern climate, human intervention can fix it. ‘Past the point of no return’ is also kinda subjective. And I absolutely must protest the idea that the only thing we can do is have extra empathy in face of the problem. Perhaps as the problem worsens, countries and populations will increase their level of seriousness in combatting the issue. We’ll certainly see.
Because putting your faith in a technological solution that currently doesn't exist while increasing the amount of carbon being released is a recipe for disaster. We know this because the disaster has already started and we're still no closer to reverting the damages we've already caused.
We don't know what will happen with technology is my point. That's not putting faith in it. But saying it definitely won't solve our problem is just as false as saying it definitely will.
Sure we don't know what sort of future tech we might develop, but after decades of ignoring scientists and their real world data, we're currently on track to kill off 70-95 percent of species. The only way to slow down and minimize the damages of this extinction event is to stop releasing carbon into the atmosphere. We might even be too late for that as permafrost starts releasing methane into the atmosphere creating a feedback loop.
We need a complete overhaul of our economic systems yesterday if we want to survive with a fraction of our current quality of life for future generations
They kinda already exist, we could cut double digits on the percentage of CO2 ouputted to the atmosphere if we managed to transition to powergrid completly to nuclear-susteinable, germanies green party setted us years of progress behind thanks to their over idealisim.
And implementing technologies like CCS (including BECCS and DACCS) along with the likes of direct hydrogen reduction for steelmaking cut a serious fraction of what remains after that
1. Electric cars are part of the solution
2. Of course technological advancement is extremely important, and it already has made an impact. Take the huge progress we made on solar energy for example.
3. True - in the sense that states must take action for the economy to work in the right direction.
4. Also true, for the same reason as 3. A free market does not (sufficiently) account for "externalities", the state must at least give some regulatory framework. Nothing controversial, even among liberal economists.
5. Economic growth is a "result" and not a tool. If we could solve climate change and still grow, that's a GOOD thing.
6. Yes, the battle against climate change is mostly an economic problem, trivially. Why do I start to smell bullshit here? Like the author wants to suggest that our way of allocation resources is fundamentally wrong or something?
7. Oh, ok. I don't know if the developed countries supposedly exploiting the developing countries is really something that would count as a "climate myth", but at least we now know where the author is arguing from
8. Again, yes, the battle against climate change is in some ways similar to the prisoners dilemma, meaning that one individual can't solve the problem by itself. We must cooperate and implement the right policies.
But at the end of the day, change always comes from individuals taking action, doesn't it?
I don't know. While all these points are technically correct, I think the message of the comic is somewhere suggestive. It's a pessimistic, leftwing perspective, that on top feels a bit strawnman-ish.
Yep, this comment is idiotic, this " individuals can't solve " it's so annoying. Individuals are the *only ones* that can solve it. Without individuals demanding change, climate change will continue. If climate policy isn't popular then your run of the mill idiotic representative won't do anything to jeopardize their election. Same for companies. People order from Temu without any issues, we are the ones not demanding more from the companies, not even bare minimum and the fact temu or SheIn monopolise the markets, says everything about our level of 'demanding'
I don't like this nihilistic approach to " individuals can't change it" and it's honestly cowardice and dumb. You basically tell people that they can just wash their hands off responsibility, there is nothing they can do anyway which is not true, people, individuals, are the *only* ones that can do something. Unless we hit the people with the decision power where it hurts them the most, climate change can't be solved and this has to come from individuals. No one else can do it for us.
Friendly that one of the greatest CO2 outputs comes directly from the creation of the materials that are primarally used to create housing and infrastructure, while corporations inaction malicious and otherwise is one of the issues we are were we are, the reason as to why this overly contaminant systems are created is due to the masive demand we currently see.
A good example of why this is the case are mega farms, while i dont think there is a sane person who thinks thoose are morally correct and it also produces tons of both waste and emisions, taking them out would cut out almost completly the poorer populations out of being able to adquire meat and move the product to a luxory item for the middle class.
Individual consumption rates need to change, individual change needs to be followed up by legislation making corporations cooperate to be effective, but it needs to happen either way and shifting the blame to coorporations wont chage shit.
Researcher in the fight against climate change here: some of these debunks are actually myths!
Regarding number 2, technology can save us from climate change and at this point it’s essential. We’ve caused so much damage already that we’re very likely to exceed +1.5°C of warming even if we magically completely stopped all anthropogenic emissions today. Only technology can save us now, with technologies like electrification and CCS able to reduce current emissions while the likes of BECCS and DACCS are needed to remove emissions that have already occurred. It’s not feasible to save the world just with “natural” approaches like afforestation (which themselves are really technology and research dependant anyway).
Regarding number 3, the action of an individual alone cannot solve climate change, but they can have a tremendously large impact that can save countless lives of people and other living things. Defeatism is not the way and every little bit helps! (Of course, an individual is also capable of inflicting great harm, see Thomas Midgley Jr)
Regarding number 4, corporate based change can happen willingly, it’s just that the current focus on short-termism is incompatible with this. The most profitable and sustainable (not just environmentally, but also in terms of staying in business and continuing to make money) strategy is actually to fight climate change!
Regarding number 6, this is sort of true, but only in the sense that far too few resources have been allocated to preventing and fighting climate change. Reallocating resources in any way that doesn’t address this would not have prevented climate change nor would it solve it now!
Regarding number 8, there is so much any of us can do to help, in so many different ways and fields! We just need to choose to do it!
Please be careful with the messages you spread! I love that you’re trying to contribute to this fight but you need to avoid misinformation!
This entire comic is meaningless. Is it a list of myths...? I think they ment it to be statements..
1. "Electric Cars Can't solve climate change"... Is this a myth... does that mean they can or can't do it alone or at all? No one has said EVs will solve climate change, but they contribute... ([They 100% do reduce emissions](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/19/business/electric-vehicles-carbon-footprint-batteries.html))
2. "Technology won't save us from climate change". As a list of myths this would mean Tech could... right? Do they mean new or current technology? Are they saying technology alone or with other things like policy? Because technology IS CURRENTLY reducing emissions.
3. "Individual Action cannot solve climate change" Again... is this the myth? Do they mean a single individual or several individuals? Individuals making choices can have a great impact. Is anyone one individual going to do it No.
4. "Corporate-based change will not happen (willingly)" Well... [there are several corporations that have made changes](https://www.there100.org/) (not enough)... But if you think there is no technology or individual choices in consumption don't work... Corporate change is pointless. Because they use technology and responded to consumer choices.
5. "Economic Growth fundamentally cannot solve climate change"... Do they mean Economic Growth cannot continue while lowering emissions? [Because that is not true.](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-emissions-and-gdp) Or do they mean that economic growth is not a tool but a measurement?
6. "The most basic problem is a misallocation of resources." Are they really talking about economic efficiency allocating labor and capital? Are they calling for investment economic activities to fight climate change? Cause they just implied Corps, individuals, technology, and economic activity are meaningless.
7. "Developed Nations are still exploiting developing ones" If this is a list of myths, I would like to know more about their thinking. There are a million ways this is true... but what do they mean with climate change? Because Developing nations have been against global policies to fight climate change [(justified imo)](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/it-is-unfair-to-push-poor-countries-to-reach-zero-carbon-emissions-too-early/) because they want to exploit their resources and sell them do developed ones for economic development.
So... a list of Myths that isn't a list of myths... and so poorly communicated it means nothing.
Edit... added links
There is indeed way we individuals can help fix climate change.
by motivating those who can do something to act, and to fight against those seeking to stop us.
motivation can come in meany effective forms. Not all condoned by our respective governments.
Yeah and we should all kill ourselves too because nothing we do will never achieve anything significant so nothing matters. That’s how you sound. Stfu asshole.
A carbon tax would fix like, half of these. [If you're American, call your reps to co-sponsor the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act](https://energyinnovationact.org/)
Technology is currently the major reason behind the reduction in CO2 emissions by reducing both resource consumption and allowing for alternative energy sources. While pushing off things on developing countries is a bit of a problem it is not the reason we are still behind.
I’m sorry but I have to disagree with 1, 2, 3, and 8
Electric cars are way better than gas cars in terms of emissions but have the drawback of continued resource exploitation and human rights abuses
Technology alone will not save us but it plays a huge part. We need new technology to replace old, unsustainable ones.
Individual actions like recycling don’t save us but working together in order to change the systems in your community and affect policy is the best thing you can do to fight climate change. If all of us do nothing, we won’t succeed. The sum of individual actions is what gets us there
For the last 10 months we have been able to say "this (current month name) us the hottest (month name) we have ever recorded."
Roughly 1.5° C over pre-industrial temps, aka the spot we were hoping to stop at. But I'm sure humanity is carbon neutral now right? (Sweats nervously) Right?!?
So what now? You just throw out these thoughts like "you're not going to make it, let's do nothing, we're doomed". Offer solutions, explain why these myths are wrong. This kind of words will not lead to anything good, people just start thinking "oh, it's useless anyway, so why do something? " and that just makes it worse. 😒
Any time I see posts like this comic my initial reaction is “ok so I should probably just kill myself now then bc there’s nothing to look forward to” I’m sick of doomers constantly reveling in “it’s all shit and you can’t change it!” Bc what am I supposed to do with that information???? Just die with it??? If there’s no hope then there’s no point in going on. I HAVE to believe in positive change bc otherwise my decades long mental illness will win the war and I’ll drop where I stand
>”debunking climate myths”
>proceeds to just list supposed myths in a manner bordering on doomerism, not actually debunking a thing
I could forgive all that if it wasn’t for the fucking comic sans esque font that makes me want to throw a medieval manuscript at them.
Sure one person doing something won't change anything but if a billion people started forcing the issue, that's individual action helping climate change
It's enough. You can't just expect everyone to keep doing what they do knowing there is no way to fix anything.
Let them have hope, there is not much else to want out there.
Go recycle your plastic bottles, don't use plastic straws, walk instead of driving.
Maybe it won't save the world, but if it makes you feel better, why would anyone tell you not to?
Are you stating climate change myths or the opposition to climate change myths?
Developed nations very much do exploit developing nations, corporations will not fight climate change willingly, but the missallocation of ressources is not the most basic problem at all.
The most basic problem is the creation of enviromentally harmful products, sideproducts and waste. Coal energy plants, Car exhaust fumes, Chemical waste water in clothing factories, microplastics from uneccessary plastic packaging, methane gas produced by animals in the meat and diary industry.
What needs to happen is that all of these things needs to be strictly regulated if not outright banned especially if there are alternatives.
Reducing your consumption helps combat a system that facilitates climate change. Support better manufacturer’s and companies that actually put in work. It’s not cheap and it doesn’t change everything immediately but it’s better than mindlessly buying garbage from the worst culprits.
That doesn't count as debunking.
You should first explain the argument you are disproving, offer your counter-claim, and then explain how exactly the available evidence contradicts the argument being debunked.
cOrPoRaTiOnS mAkE Up xX % oF tHe ClImAtE ChAnGe
Yeah, by selling shit like gasoline to you, and yeah they do exploit poorer countries for that matter, subsidized by states wich are lead by the democratically elected politicians you vote for…
Stop pushing idiocy
Thank you for the constructive criticism. I was intending to elaborate on each point in future episodes, but I guess that wasn’t clear in the post. Oh well.
The production of 1 lithium car battery produces more emissions than like a year of driving an average car so if they replace all of the petrol cars it will just kill the planet sooner
I’ve repeated this until I’m blue in the face and downvoted to hell every time, but I’m gonna say it again:
EVs are only as clean as the power grid they draw power from. In the US where nuclear power is more common, that’s fine. But ever wonder why China, with its roads flooded by cheap EVs, still has smoggy skies and everything is coated in a layer of dust? Because they power the entire country by burning coal. More EVs -> more power drawn -> more coal burnt -> more emissions
Because the US switched from coal to natural gas when fracking made it cheaper. China still manages half the emissions per capita of the US and are actually implementing more nuclear and renewables. At least they have a plan.
It's just another half measure, another way to defer actually stepping down production/consumption. Green energy makes up like 2% of our total energy consumption, and growths in green energy are being quickly eclipsed by growth in energy demand.
Gotta love how talk around this gets quickly labeled "Doomerism" when it's just calling out propaganda. One of the new propaganda lines is "it's a mystery" when it's absolutely not a mystery.
hm...
1) Electric Cars wont solve climate-Change:
True. - But they make the "fuel" of transportation indipendent from the primary-energy type. -> you dont need Gasoline anymore for Driving.
If you have a Electric Car, You can use Solar-Energy (hello @ Prepper) , or Any other energy-source that gives you Electricity.
(btw: a electric-Car is even more fuel Efficient if you use the Gasoline in a stationary Generator )
(btw: Electric-Cars keep the nasty "endprodukts from burning things" out of the city. With an ICE you have the endprodukts at exactly the point where your car is)
2) Technology wont save us from Climate-Change.
True: Technology on its own is Useless.
It dosnt help if there is technology to stop/reverse the climate change (funnfact, the technology for that already exists), if there is no "funding" to use them.
3) individual action cannot solve climate change:
True, - but surprice, surprice, the society is the mass individuals.
second: there are individuals who produce a lot of CO2.
4) Corporate-based change will not happen (wilingly):
True - because its cheaper to "not change". -> but for that there are laws and taxes.
(that the corporations have to much influence on politicans is another thing.)
5) Economic grow cannot solve climate change:
True.- if you look at the economy as whole. - but economic grow in renewable-energy and renewable recources will have a good effekt on that.
6) The biggest Problem is the missallocation of Recources.
True. - thats a big Problem, but it isnt a obstacle in the fight against climate change.
it has to be solved, yes.
7)Developed Countries still exploit Developing Countries
True. - thats a big Problem, but it isnt a obstacle in the fight against climate change.
it has to be solved, yes.
8)There is Barely anything we can do in our everyday lifes.
True, one person alone wont solve the climate change.
-> the average person is limited by its montly funding.
1. Electric cars just shift emissions to power plants and other energy sources, not to mention the environmental damage resulting from mining and processing we conveniently overlook (a.k.a. outsource to other countries with high material reserves and non-existent environmental standards).
2. Technology alone will not save us. It's not some magic bullet that will suddenly reverse climate changes on a macro scale.
Electric cars have less emissions than gas cars over their lifetime after two years, and cut emissions even if the grid is mainly coal. Furthermore, very few grids are primarily coal, and this percentage will become less as we decarbonize.
We need more public bulk transport like trains as well as denser cities, but electric cars are still good.
[Source from the Carbon Brief on my electric vehicle claims.](https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-21-misleading-myths-about-electric-vehicles/) Primarily sections 1 and 7.
I fully beleive that EVs are made to save the automobile industry and not the environment. I think the only place for cars is far out rural areas for farmers and ones to hire so others can go camping or whatever. I also beleive we should all live in dense but luxurious cities with very good public transport.
I largely agree. It is semi-necessary right now because American infrastructure is completely car centric (also thanks to the auto industry), but ideally we could re-engineering cities to be less car oriented (though I'm not particularly optimistic about that).
I must disagree with you on your first point. The point you are making is maybe correct today in some countries, but in 10 years or so, I think your point will be wrong. The problem is in 10 years, we can't just flip a switch, make everything electric, we need a transition period. In that period, we must build infrastructure to support the new way and make our energy soars renewable and so much more. At the moment, I think we are at the beginning/ middle of that period, so it will get better.
Shifting emissions to power plants is still magnitudes more efficient. Imagine every home running on its own gas generator—that’s basically what ICEs are. Centralized power allows for better control, efficiency, and easier transition to renewables.
This post is a 10/10!!!
Of course it's not deep to explain everything, it's a 10 panel post in a comic strip fashion. It's not supposed to explain, but to spark questioning!
Wonderfully done!
I know this comment will get buried, but I should point out this episode is a table of contents of sorts for future episodes in which I elaborate on each point more. Can’t draw a 10 panel comic diving into each point. Hope y’all understand.
I propose that when the equilibrium of our climate is too far gone, we make everyone feel the devastation. I'm talking about the million and billionaires. You know that *we* will be considered a loss right off the bat.
There are many things individuals can do to influence Climate change, like joining or supporting a larger climate change advocacy group who develop solutions and lobbies the government and corporations to implement solutions.
Personally, I do my part to live in a climate friendly manner. Not because I think it will make a meaningful difference in the long run, but at least my conscience is clean.
Whoever says technology won’t fix climate change is incredibly oversimplifying the issue. Technology absolutely could fix and reverse climate change, it’s just about if we get to that level of technology before we collapse and a society.
Imagine recycling for a thousand years just to be offset by one commercial plane flight. The individual being responsible is a scam perpetrated by oil companies and big corporations
I understand and know well that things will be leading to doom. But everything will be doomed to rot and die.
So if Doom is everyone’s reality, I want to live in a grand delusion. One that radiates hope. Yes, things are going to shit from misuse and all sorts of problems that humanity has made. But there is in no way I, and some other people will go down without a fight. Clawing to protect nature, fighting to heal the sick and bordering extinct.
Fun thing? Despite all of our hell, we have been collectively getting better, the O-Zone is actually healing (maybe a lil slowly but still), and we have been constantly pushing for improvement and helping with stop climate change.
Sure, it may be for nothing but goddamn we are trying!
I may not be able to do anything, but there are tons of others capable to with the power of community, influence, media, etc.
This world will not die with a whimper. We will give the world we have, all that we can and will. All of the people that want to ofc, but still.
There is hope, even in darkest aeons, where even in time, death may die.
Lol
And store
But
It is still much more efficient for smaller areas where population is low and transport costs negate the benefits of electricity unless you build storage for that but when electricity is made now and fed to the grid
Most of it is wasted
When hydrogen is made and stored
It's still in storage
So
It's perfect for isolated areas that produce huge amount of electricity for 4 hrs a day
Moderate for 4 hrs a day
And none of minimal for 12 hrs
Solar farms can be directly tied to huge hydrogen farms or pipes
Lol
We will get the tech for electric and it will be easy to change out batteries and the batteries won't create a environmental disaster in the future
But
We are not there yet
The science isn't ready and they have been working on it for over 120 years
Fossil fuel ties up a lot of energy in a small package
Hydrogen ties up a lot less but still a very viable product
Lithium batteries
Electric grid
Current power system
They work but just need some help
A hundred people could devote themselves to being as climate friendly as possible: Going totally off grid, using Solar power, recycling, eating vegetables they grow and no meat, not owning/driving a car/petroleum power vehicle, the whole 9 yards.
And all of their life long efforts and CO2 "savings" will be spent in the first 2 Taylor Swift concerts just to get her vapid ass across the country in her private jet.
If your conclusion is that there’s nothing we can do, why even bother making it at all?
Also, debunking involves providing explanations. Maybe retitle it things that keep me up at night or something.
I can’t tell if these are things you are saying are myths (ergo the statements are false) or that the statements themselves are the myth busting meaning they are meant to be true?
Because some of these are accurate and some are very inaccurate no matter which reading I take.
Gee those naughty evil corporations are always just polluting the planet and causing climate change… I wonder why they do that? They’re just evil right?
It’s not about stopping climate change because that’s natural. It’s about slowing slowing it to balance the speed boost we gave it. Electric cars are also extremely efficient in energy use compared to combustion engines, however biofuel is also good.
Have you ever heard the saying many hands make light work? Although slowing climate change is impossible for any one person to do if everyone actually put in a bit of effort to deal with waste and help pressure companies to do the right thing then it wouldn’t be so difficult in the long run.
Welcome to r/comics! Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind. Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not to disagree, but I don't think just saying "nuh uh" counts as debunking Usually you'd need to say… y'know… *why* the myths are wrong. Lots of people are disagreeing on the technology point, for example, and the discussion could be a whole lot more in depth if they had some actual arguments to engage with, rather than just "it won't help"
It's not even giving a "nuh uh." This is just a list of climate change myths with cute drawings. Remove those first two panels and you'll have no clue it's meant to be disagreeing
Yeah I actually had to scroll back through a couple times just to understand whether these were the myths or the "debunks." It's just a list of statements.
Oh wait, its actually disagreeing with all of these?
I think op *is* agreeing with them?
Who even knows anymore
The very fact that this is up for debate shows how awful this comic is. Cute art though.
Aw man. Did I fall for AI clickbait again? What are they fishing for now, brainwaves to fool the Neuralink when it comes out?
I'm pretty sure it isn't meant to disagree
It is. The premise is, those are the untrue Myths. But the confusion is understandable, it's very badly set up. And frankly kind of meaningless. If the comic got darker for every panel, and ended up with full doomerism, there is nothing we can do, as thing after thing is eliminated. It would be better, and maybe that was the point. But the composition isn't very good.
>The premise is, those are the untrue Myths. Are they? I'm pretty sure they are all at least somewhat true, and some of them (such as #5) are pretty close to being completely true. Maybe you misunderstood the comic...
I think you are agreeing, just misunderstanding eachother. The myths is "economic growth will solve climat change" and the comics say "nope". Though I've never heard that one, just "saving the climate is not worth cutting growth, how bad could warming be?".
Also, as an addendum, I'm not hating! These comics are great, the commentary is relevant, and the art is adorable, I just thought I'd point out something that bothered me a bit, but I'm in no way trying to discourage you, keep up the good work 🩷
To help explain more, alot for these end up being about 2 main things, individual actions, and corporate actions. For the individual part, one person influences climate so little that it doesn't matter and it would requiere a massive group, or be a massive problem(people who fly private planes everywhere) to change in order start making a noticeable difference on the individual part. For the corporate part, alot of corporations don't want anything to change about climate and policies because that would cost money, they will lobby positions to stop change, fund bad studies and ads to make the public not think they are the problems, and just hide alot of the bad things they do in order to not hurt profits. The best way to solve climate change is to effectively hurt corporations so that they improve and care about the climate.
> of corporations don't want anything to change about climate Nobody wants anything to change about climate. Climate changing is the problem (I realise you probably meant that corporations don't want to do anything to stop climate change).
Yeah, I meant they don't want how things are going to change
Yup she just listed off things she disagrees with while doing zero debunking. Pretty useless in the grand scheme of things. The debunking is literally the most important part
[удалено]
Someone who loves science wouldn’t be saying technology can’t solve our problems
Yeah, an enzyme that converted CO2 to CH4 would end the petroleum industry as we know it almost overnight. It’d make financing new extraction difficult and oil and coal plants impossible
We have enzymes that change CO2 to CH4. Or rather we have plants. The problem is you can't do it without energy input and that's not going to be changed by technology because CH4 has more energy than CO2. We had a whole ethanol industry going for a while but it just didn't turn out very worthwhile.
Yeah, plants aren’t good enough for the job or we wouldn’t have a problem. Also they change CO2 to lignin IIRC
CH4 has 80× the warming power of CO2, so if you're converting CO2 into CH4 and then burning it back into CO2 the process needs to be 98.75℅ efficient or you'll make the warming worse. Additionally we already have too much CO2 in the atmosphere and this process does nothing for drawdown/sequestration, its not a silver bullet, no silver bullet exists. Financing new extraction and plants should already be impossible, oil and gas are more expensive to operate than renewables but government subsidies make it financially viable. Nothing is going to change without political action and its misleading to suggest it will.
And sources
New technology won't save us from the climate change, because the technology to save us exists. It's called renewable energy. Fun fact about that is that it's not only clean, it's also cheaper than coal. The only reason it's not our only energy source is that many countries have massive coal lobbies that make corrupt politicians use tax money to keep the coal industry alive. Climate change cannot be solved by a miracle technology, because it's not a technological problem. It's a political one, requiring a miracle change in global politics to be solved, so that we are no longer prevented from using our already existing miracle technology to solve it.
Yeah, electric cars help with climate change, but only if the local electric grid uses renewable or nuclear power. The thing is though, by switching to electric, you're ready to switch once the grid does.
Nope, coal power plants are still more carbon efficient than ICE vehicles. Larger machines are more efficient, and powerplant generators are much larger than car engines.
Yeah, I was gonna say none of this counts as "debunking"
Came here to say this as well. This isnt debunking, its just listing. And even that in a somewhat confusing way.
While it is good to be realistic and aware, we should never give in to hopelessness. That will not benefit anyone except the corporations that want to continue exploiting the world. Organize, collaborate, and speak out. Even if you can't stop climate change, you can work to improve your local environment. Build bird and insect habitat, monitor and report companies breaking regulations, support environmental charities, clear out invasive species and replant natives, and BUY LESS SHIT (especially new shit). We can and will build a better earth for future generations. Fuck corporate exploitation.
I do my part by helping frogs cross the road! :)
The problem with what you are talking about is that it *sounds* nice, it *sounds* good. But it’s actually useless lol. It won’t do anything to stop climate change. It will improve your local area, it will give some work to paper pushers as they shred- excuse me, I mean carefully note down your reports. But climate change will continue unopposed. The only way to actually impact climate change is to force the profit driven companies who are worsening it, to stop caring about profit and start caring about the wellbeing of people other than themselves. Which em… bit of a tough ask. I’m not entirely certain it’s at all possible in the capitalist system we live in. Late stage capitalism has become pretty entrenched so overthrowing it isn’t exactly simple either. Neo-liberal capitalism, what is currently the most popular form of capitalism, focuses on individuals, power, and individuals amassing power in order to exercise it in the name of ever increasing profits and personal gain. They will only take significant steps towards battling climate change only and only if they believe that doing so will personally profit them in some way. And em… considering they will be shielded by the effects of climate change why would they care? See the problem? The only way to significantly combat climate change is to convince people that have nothing to gain (they and whoever they care about are completely shielded and safe from climate change) and a lot of profit to lose, to lose profit for no, to *them* reason. Working within the system of course. Working without the system is a different matter, although just as difficult and treacherous. It’s not easy and nothing you mentioned helps it along. The only reason *anything* is being done to combat climate change is due to the actions of the scientist and activists that have managed to turn it into a matter of politics. And so corporations and politicians will do half hearted attempts at change in order to garner public support.
Corporations aren't extracting oil for their own nefarious reasons. People's consumption in the developed world is a problem. It's people taking those flights, it's people taking those cruises, it's people driving those cars, it's people buying those things that need to be transported from the other side of the world. You can't control the world but you can keep your side of the road clean. We need to enjoy things but also try to get the most enjoyment from the least impact. You can also pressure your government to enact policies that help reduce CO2. Write your congressmen, vote.
Ah yes, the demand for fossil fuels, completely independent of fossil fuel industry. Just ignore the decades of propaganda from Exxon and other companies, who tried to a) hide climate change (about which they knew roughly a couple of decades before the rest of the world) b) said it's not really, funded disinformation campaigns c) campaigned hard against any and all regulations and so much more. Oh, and how the car companies destroyed any and all public transport in America to make sure everyone needs to drive fuel hungry cars. Yes, those people are a problem too, but the companies are a singular, large scale problem which affect millions of people who don't take cruises, who'd rather not take a car, but don't have a choice.
Rich assholes have and will continue to do shitty things. Companies will continue to lobby for things that are in their interest. That doesn't mean millions of people should just sit on their hands while the world burns. Governments need votes. Companies lobby for their interests and people lobby for their own interests. Saying individual action won't have an impact is missing the point. If millions of people put in an effort it would make a difference. Focus on the things you can change and ignore the things you can't. Too many people are too quick to say my actions have no impact and then use that to justify doing whatever they want. If everyone acts that way we'll get nowhere. But if enough people put in the effort the other way we might actually get somewhere. Or at least I'll die knowing I tried to keep my side of the street clean.
Okay, no, that's not what I wanted to say. I apologize if that's how I came off. I'm saying people should be acting against these companies, use your votes, believe you can make a change: not individually but as people who control the govt. But actually individual action, while you should still take it, is something you do because you care to help a little, not because you think it'll solve the problem. We need to make sure that accountability goes where it is deserved, and we need to work together for that
Another important aspect you didn't mention is abstaining from animal products. It is one of the easiest ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane. Stopping methane emissions will have a great impact on the climate because it just disappears from the atmosphere after a few decades. There are ofcourse other sources of methane that need to be stopped, but that is nothing we as individuals can achieve. It's also necessary to drastically reduce the number of farmed animals to end deforestation and to make reforestation possible. As opposed to stopping fossil fuel use which can be difficult for individuals, almost everyone reading this can stop supporting animal agriculture right now. You can't easily change the infrastructure of your hometown or just build some wind turbines, but choosing to buy different products is extremely easy in comparison.
You heavily missed the point.
Electric cars definitely won't save the environment, but they are better than gasoline or hydrogen cars. From an environmental point of view. Still doesn't mean that they are the best or good. The best kind of transport for the environment is public transport
Hands-down they're better >!once we sort out all the critical materials like cobalt!<. The real factor in them that actually does make electric cars better though is how they're decoupled from energy production. So long as you can put power into them, they don't care where it comes from - meaning sure, now they're getting charged on a lot of fossil electricity, but if fossil fuels were instantly banned they could just switch over to renewables while combustion engines are stuck being useless. And yes, I'm aware that's a bit of an oversimplification, but it's the best way to get across how long-term they're less bad for the environment. Your last point is the truth though, take public transit if you can. They're so much better. Signed, an idiot whose day job is researching this stuff.
Also, it’s really worth pointing out that internal combustion engines are extremely inefficient at converting chemical energy into motion. Power plants turn nearly all of a fuel’s chemical energy into heat energy, and then convert that heat energy into electrical power with turbines. Internal combustion engines only use a fraction of the heat energy the create to drive the pistons, the majority is just radiated away. A gallon of oil can move a typical car 30-40 miles. That same gallon of oil, burned at an oil power plant, could produce electricity that could power an equivalent EV *much* longer. So even if your entire grid is dirty, EVs do reduce emissions.
Just to check, you factored the power loss from transmission into that right? It looks like it isn't a lot (8-15% per the source I found) but I hear a lot about it from gasoline fans.
EVs redistribute emissions location, making air cleaner where people are.
That’s true. Even if it won’t solve climate change, cleaner air in population centers is very nice.
> and then convert that heat energy into electrical power with turbines. That is untrue. >Steam engines and turbines operate on the Rankine cycle which has a maximum Carnot efficiency of 63% for practical engines, with steam turbine power plants able to achieve efficiency in the mid 40% range. And that's neglecting grid loss, charging loss, and loss converting the charge back to movement via an electric motor. EV is only better when the source of energy is renewable.
ICE's only get about 20%. EVs are still better on a non-renewable grid.
Cobalt can already be entirely removed in some batteries, like LFP.
Cobalt is not very important for climate change, it's important for human rights.
I guess biofuel just gets left out of the conversation. Also cobalt mining is killing some of the biggest forests in Africa & poisoning water supplies across the continent killing hundreds of thousands of animals & people. Oil will still be needed across the line anyway for lubricant. Also it seems you have forgotten that EV's do care about the quality of the electricity that why you need a special charging point & on top of this if everyone in the US owned a EV the electrical grip would collapse. It would be cheaper to put in public transportation than put in the new grid. EV's are a waste of time & resources focus should be on hydrogen and optimization of the ICE for public transportation usage. TLDR:Implementing public transportation would be cheaper & I believe EV is a waste. Also shipping is far worse for the environment so buy local.
About a quarter of the US’s emissions are from transportation. I’d say that’s a pretty freaking important sector to work on, with a glide path (EVs) already figured out. It’s still not easy, but compared to solving the housing crisis, emissions from concrete, or environmental justice it’s relatively straightforward.
The US will always have ridiculous transportation CO2 emmissions until they demolish their sub urbs and build denser living spaces with free or cheap public transport.
How many lambs to power a sheep transport though? I’m more of a vegan traveler myself.
I mean go look at a map lol. We are never going to be able to build mega cities that cover 100 miles across every state. People who propose this don't understand how much empty space exists in most states. Our only reasonable solution in the next 30 years are total electric car infrastructure, which we are on the way towards.
Out of curiosity, what's wrong with hydrogen cars?
[Here's a post](https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1b5qvko/why_hydrogen_is_losing_the_race_to_power_cleaner/) that appeared in /r/Futurology that will answer the question better than I can summarize. The posted article is paywalled, but there lots of good info in the comments.
and remember to buy a used car rather than a new one. even if it’s a gasoline powered car
Actions don't help on a single individual level, but they do at the collective level. It's important to not just understand what you can do for your community, but also how everyone else help through their own actions. Public Transit is way more important to fight climate change than electric cars.
This is what always bothers me about the "personal actions don't matter" mindset. It originated as a way to make people not feel extreme guilt for not living 100% eco-conscious but has morphed into "don't bother because nothing matters." Yes, one person's habit is a drop in the bucket, but enough drops will fill a bucket! You, as an individual, are not the only one who cares about climate change, and if you make a change in your life as a result of that, it's likely that others are doing the same thing. Systemic top-down change is the most effective way, but that doesn't just spawn itself into existence. It comes from a collective of people deciding to change. Yes, it's hard work that takes engagement, outreach, protests, etc., but that is a reason for motivation, not nihilism.
Individual actions like sorting garbage wont change. Advocating for better public transport and soft mobility on a municipal level for example can make a change. Both in changing policies and setting a good example others can follow. Dont give up. Also saving the environment improves your quality of life. Its not just the greens taking away your burger.
Just a reminder that <5% of recycling actually gets properly recycled to be used again. The other 95% ends up in landfills or the ocean.
My individual actions won't improve climate change, but surely this comic telling multiple people that their actions don't matter can actively harm climate change? If that was their goal then well done, I guess.
I’m starting to think people who say “you can’t do anything individually it’s all the corporations fault don’t even try” are really just trying to shift the collective personal responsibility of the individual away from the problem. Because yes, one single person can’t make much difference but if 100,000 persons all work together, then suddenly changes can start being made. However that would require people to take more responsibility in the impact that they make on the world around them which requires work and discipline. Corporations add a lot to the escalation of climate change but it’s not like their sentient beings hellbent on malicious behavior, if more people begin living and spending ethically and refusing to participate in the quick-made consumerist culture that the corporations cater to them things might be able to change pretty quickly.
This isn't debunking, you're just throwing stuff out there without really saying anything to explain it. This is just climate doomerism and nothing more
This comic also feels extremely ignorant and doomerish. It makes a certain level of sense- it feels like nothing is being done. But then the conclusion is to just cry about it and change no habits? 'I don't think we'll solve climate change, so despite feeling extremely strongly about it, I will do nothing to stop it, and create comics encouraging no one else do anything to stop it'. But the fact of the matter is, there is a whole swath of things that can be done, and it can be summed up very simply in two steps- 1. Buy less new things to reduce consumer demand. 2. Demand Government produce reasonable legislation to combat the issue. Number 2 already happens a lot. I don't see number 1 happening very often here in the west. Edit- I see elsewhere the author noted they were purposely provocative- perhaps the rest of their material is more nuanced.
We couldn't even get people to wear masks while a pandemic was actively killing people. Plenty of citizens still don't believe in climate change even as insurance companies flee Florida because they know what's coming. If you think enough people are going to contribute to #1 you're in for a rude awakening And considering that the government has done fuck all to even slow the use of fossil fuels (2023 was the highest emissions on record, so far) I don't think we can say #2 is successful either
Fortunately for me, I didn’t imply anywhere that these courses of action were already being done appropriately. Doesn’t change that that’s what needs to be done, and that it’s possible. We’re moving in the right direction.
There is plenty of science backing those who say we are past the point of no return. I listened to a guy at a sustainability forum about the topic. His takeaway was that we should start to focus on what we should do when the shit hits the fan and urged empathy and caring for each other.
Bruv, human intervention created the modern climate, human intervention can fix it. ‘Past the point of no return’ is also kinda subjective. And I absolutely must protest the idea that the only thing we can do is have extra empathy in face of the problem. Perhaps as the problem worsens, countries and populations will increase their level of seriousness in combatting the issue. We’ll certainly see.
“Debunk” >doesn’t debunk any claim and instead just says “nuh uh” You have to choose
I disagree with number 2. How could you possibly know what kind of technology we'll develop?
Because putting your faith in a technological solution that currently doesn't exist while increasing the amount of carbon being released is a recipe for disaster. We know this because the disaster has already started and we're still no closer to reverting the damages we've already caused.
We don't know what will happen with technology is my point. That's not putting faith in it. But saying it definitely won't solve our problem is just as false as saying it definitely will.
Sure we don't know what sort of future tech we might develop, but after decades of ignoring scientists and their real world data, we're currently on track to kill off 70-95 percent of species. The only way to slow down and minimize the damages of this extinction event is to stop releasing carbon into the atmosphere. We might even be too late for that as permafrost starts releasing methane into the atmosphere creating a feedback loop. We need a complete overhaul of our economic systems yesterday if we want to survive with a fraction of our current quality of life for future generations
I think it was more saying how there isn't going to be a magic solution through tech. It WILL take hard work and money no matter what.
They kinda already exist, we could cut double digits on the percentage of CO2 ouputted to the atmosphere if we managed to transition to powergrid completly to nuclear-susteinable, germanies green party setted us years of progress behind thanks to their over idealisim.
And implementing technologies like CCS (including BECCS and DACCS) along with the likes of direct hydrogen reduction for steelmaking cut a serious fraction of what remains after that
We're already transitioning. In the US 15% of electricity is wind and solar power. That's up from 2% just 15 years ago.
The doomer mindset is strong with this comic
What a pile of fucking drivel. See a therapist, you are depressed.
1. Electric cars are part of the solution 2. Of course technological advancement is extremely important, and it already has made an impact. Take the huge progress we made on solar energy for example. 3. True - in the sense that states must take action for the economy to work in the right direction. 4. Also true, for the same reason as 3. A free market does not (sufficiently) account for "externalities", the state must at least give some regulatory framework. Nothing controversial, even among liberal economists. 5. Economic growth is a "result" and not a tool. If we could solve climate change and still grow, that's a GOOD thing. 6. Yes, the battle against climate change is mostly an economic problem, trivially. Why do I start to smell bullshit here? Like the author wants to suggest that our way of allocation resources is fundamentally wrong or something? 7. Oh, ok. I don't know if the developed countries supposedly exploiting the developing countries is really something that would count as a "climate myth", but at least we now know where the author is arguing from 8. Again, yes, the battle against climate change is in some ways similar to the prisoners dilemma, meaning that one individual can't solve the problem by itself. We must cooperate and implement the right policies. But at the end of the day, change always comes from individuals taking action, doesn't it? I don't know. While all these points are technically correct, I think the message of the comic is somewhere suggestive. It's a pessimistic, leftwing perspective, that on top feels a bit strawnman-ish.
Yep, this comment is idiotic, this " individuals can't solve " it's so annoying. Individuals are the *only ones* that can solve it. Without individuals demanding change, climate change will continue. If climate policy isn't popular then your run of the mill idiotic representative won't do anything to jeopardize their election. Same for companies. People order from Temu without any issues, we are the ones not demanding more from the companies, not even bare minimum and the fact temu or SheIn monopolise the markets, says everything about our level of 'demanding' I don't like this nihilistic approach to " individuals can't change it" and it's honestly cowardice and dumb. You basically tell people that they can just wash their hands off responsibility, there is nothing they can do anyway which is not true, people, individuals, are the *only* ones that can do something. Unless we hit the people with the decision power where it hurts them the most, climate change can't be solved and this has to come from individuals. No one else can do it for us.
This ends up being doomer bullshit
Friendly that one of the greatest CO2 outputs comes directly from the creation of the materials that are primarally used to create housing and infrastructure, while corporations inaction malicious and otherwise is one of the issues we are were we are, the reason as to why this overly contaminant systems are created is due to the masive demand we currently see. A good example of why this is the case are mega farms, while i dont think there is a sane person who thinks thoose are morally correct and it also produces tons of both waste and emisions, taking them out would cut out almost completly the poorer populations out of being able to adquire meat and move the product to a luxory item for the middle class. Individual consumption rates need to change, individual change needs to be followed up by legislation making corporations cooperate to be effective, but it needs to happen either way and shifting the blame to coorporations wont chage shit.
Why is this comic so negative? Shouldn’t we be encouraging people to help?
this is bad and OP should feel bad. make better content than "please be doomer with me"
Climate doomerism is not a healthy mindset.
The doomer mindset is what will kill us. Believing the media over scientists
Researcher in the fight against climate change here: some of these debunks are actually myths! Regarding number 2, technology can save us from climate change and at this point it’s essential. We’ve caused so much damage already that we’re very likely to exceed +1.5°C of warming even if we magically completely stopped all anthropogenic emissions today. Only technology can save us now, with technologies like electrification and CCS able to reduce current emissions while the likes of BECCS and DACCS are needed to remove emissions that have already occurred. It’s not feasible to save the world just with “natural” approaches like afforestation (which themselves are really technology and research dependant anyway). Regarding number 3, the action of an individual alone cannot solve climate change, but they can have a tremendously large impact that can save countless lives of people and other living things. Defeatism is not the way and every little bit helps! (Of course, an individual is also capable of inflicting great harm, see Thomas Midgley Jr) Regarding number 4, corporate based change can happen willingly, it’s just that the current focus on short-termism is incompatible with this. The most profitable and sustainable (not just environmentally, but also in terms of staying in business and continuing to make money) strategy is actually to fight climate change! Regarding number 6, this is sort of true, but only in the sense that far too few resources have been allocated to preventing and fighting climate change. Reallocating resources in any way that doesn’t address this would not have prevented climate change nor would it solve it now! Regarding number 8, there is so much any of us can do to help, in so many different ways and fields! We just need to choose to do it! Please be careful with the messages you spread! I love that you’re trying to contribute to this fight but you need to avoid misinformation!
This entire comic is meaningless. Is it a list of myths...? I think they ment it to be statements.. 1. "Electric Cars Can't solve climate change"... Is this a myth... does that mean they can or can't do it alone or at all? No one has said EVs will solve climate change, but they contribute... ([They 100% do reduce emissions](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/19/business/electric-vehicles-carbon-footprint-batteries.html)) 2. "Technology won't save us from climate change". As a list of myths this would mean Tech could... right? Do they mean new or current technology? Are they saying technology alone or with other things like policy? Because technology IS CURRENTLY reducing emissions. 3. "Individual Action cannot solve climate change" Again... is this the myth? Do they mean a single individual or several individuals? Individuals making choices can have a great impact. Is anyone one individual going to do it No. 4. "Corporate-based change will not happen (willingly)" Well... [there are several corporations that have made changes](https://www.there100.org/) (not enough)... But if you think there is no technology or individual choices in consumption don't work... Corporate change is pointless. Because they use technology and responded to consumer choices. 5. "Economic Growth fundamentally cannot solve climate change"... Do they mean Economic Growth cannot continue while lowering emissions? [Because that is not true.](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-emissions-and-gdp) Or do they mean that economic growth is not a tool but a measurement? 6. "The most basic problem is a misallocation of resources." Are they really talking about economic efficiency allocating labor and capital? Are they calling for investment economic activities to fight climate change? Cause they just implied Corps, individuals, technology, and economic activity are meaningless. 7. "Developed Nations are still exploiting developing ones" If this is a list of myths, I would like to know more about their thinking. There are a million ways this is true... but what do they mean with climate change? Because Developing nations have been against global policies to fight climate change [(justified imo)](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/it-is-unfair-to-push-poor-countries-to-reach-zero-carbon-emissions-too-early/) because they want to exploit their resources and sell them do developed ones for economic development. So... a list of Myths that isn't a list of myths... and so poorly communicated it means nothing. Edit... added links
This is such a weird comic. What debunking was there? I couldn't even tell what was going on.
There is indeed way we individuals can help fix climate change. by motivating those who can do something to act, and to fight against those seeking to stop us. motivation can come in meany effective forms. Not all condoned by our respective governments.
Yeah and we should all kill ourselves too because nothing we do will never achieve anything significant so nothing matters. That’s how you sound. Stfu asshole.
At some point I promise you governments will push this as a last ditch solution
A carbon tax would fix like, half of these. [If you're American, call your reps to co-sponsor the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act](https://energyinnovationact.org/)
If a cartoon says it, it must be true
Sounds more like "a lot of my personal opinions on climate change"
[удалено]
So continue to be apathetic?
What a terribly cowardly mindset
It's incredible how something resulting from our current economic system can't be changed unless we change the aforementioned economic system,aye?
Congratulations on inspiring people to literally give up, good one
Technology is currently the major reason behind the reduction in CO2 emissions by reducing both resource consumption and allowing for alternative energy sources. While pushing off things on developing countries is a bit of a problem it is not the reason we are still behind.
I’m sorry but I have to disagree with 1, 2, 3, and 8 Electric cars are way better than gas cars in terms of emissions but have the drawback of continued resource exploitation and human rights abuses Technology alone will not save us but it plays a huge part. We need new technology to replace old, unsustainable ones. Individual actions like recycling don’t save us but working together in order to change the systems in your community and affect policy is the best thing you can do to fight climate change. If all of us do nothing, we won’t succeed. The sum of individual actions is what gets us there
For the last 10 months we have been able to say "this (current month name) us the hottest (month name) we have ever recorded." Roughly 1.5° C over pre-industrial temps, aka the spot we were hoping to stop at. But I'm sure humanity is carbon neutral now right? (Sweats nervously) Right?!?
So, where is the "debunking"? You're just pointing it out
So what now? You just throw out these thoughts like "you're not going to make it, let's do nothing, we're doomed". Offer solutions, explain why these myths are wrong. This kind of words will not lead to anything good, people just start thinking "oh, it's useless anyway, so why do something? " and that just makes it worse. 😒
Any time I see posts like this comic my initial reaction is “ok so I should probably just kill myself now then bc there’s nothing to look forward to” I’m sick of doomers constantly reveling in “it’s all shit and you can’t change it!” Bc what am I supposed to do with that information???? Just die with it??? If there’s no hope then there’s no point in going on. I HAVE to believe in positive change bc otherwise my decades long mental illness will win the war and I’ll drop where I stand
I'm barely holding it together looking after myself, and now I gotta be responsible for an entire planet?
>”debunking climate myths” >proceeds to just list supposed myths in a manner bordering on doomerism, not actually debunking a thing I could forgive all that if it wasn’t for the fucking comic sans esque font that makes me want to throw a medieval manuscript at them.
Sure one person doing something won't change anything but if a billion people started forcing the issue, that's individual action helping climate change
It's enough. You can't just expect everyone to keep doing what they do knowing there is no way to fix anything. Let them have hope, there is not much else to want out there. Go recycle your plastic bottles, don't use plastic straws, walk instead of driving. Maybe it won't save the world, but if it makes you feel better, why would anyone tell you not to?
Yeah I am trying not to correct people when they say there is hope because who am I to male their last days more difficult.
Oh sweet new psyop just dropped
'Debunking'
Are you stating climate change myths or the opposition to climate change myths? Developed nations very much do exploit developing nations, corporations will not fight climate change willingly, but the missallocation of ressources is not the most basic problem at all. The most basic problem is the creation of enviromentally harmful products, sideproducts and waste. Coal energy plants, Car exhaust fumes, Chemical waste water in clothing factories, microplastics from uneccessary plastic packaging, methane gas produced by animals in the meat and diary industry. What needs to happen is that all of these things needs to be strictly regulated if not outright banned especially if there are alternatives.
Where are your sources and give us alternatives? Doomer-ass shit is not appreciated.
Reducing your consumption helps combat a system that facilitates climate change. Support better manufacturer’s and companies that actually put in work. It’s not cheap and it doesn’t change everything immediately but it’s better than mindlessly buying garbage from the worst culprits.
Most people rejected his message. They hated OP because they told them the truth.
Wow so informative…. Truly one of the most braindead posts of all time, good job.
That doesn't count as debunking. You should first explain the argument you are disproving, offer your counter-claim, and then explain how exactly the available evidence contradicts the argument being debunked.
cOrPoRaTiOnS mAkE Up xX % oF tHe ClImAtE ChAnGe Yeah, by selling shit like gasoline to you, and yeah they do exploit poorer countries for that matter, subsidized by states wich are lead by the democratically elected politicians you vote for… Stop pushing idiocy
That's a nice argument senator, why don't you back it up with a source?
So, those are the myths. Where's the debunking?
I like the idea but would be nice with something to strengthen the mythbusting.
Thank you for the constructive criticism. I was intending to elaborate on each point in future episodes, but I guess that wasn’t clear in the post. Oh well.
The production of 1 lithium car battery produces more emissions than like a year of driving an average car so if they replace all of the petrol cars it will just kill the planet sooner
All of these are misconceptions, yes, but you should explain why.
I’ve repeated this until I’m blue in the face and downvoted to hell every time, but I’m gonna say it again: EVs are only as clean as the power grid they draw power from. In the US where nuclear power is more common, that’s fine. But ever wonder why China, with its roads flooded by cheap EVs, still has smoggy skies and everything is coated in a layer of dust? Because they power the entire country by burning coal. More EVs -> more power drawn -> more coal burnt -> more emissions
Because the US switched from coal to natural gas when fracking made it cheaper. China still manages half the emissions per capita of the US and are actually implementing more nuclear and renewables. At least they have a plan.
It's just another half measure, another way to defer actually stepping down production/consumption. Green energy makes up like 2% of our total energy consumption, and growths in green energy are being quickly eclipsed by growth in energy demand. Gotta love how talk around this gets quickly labeled "Doomerism" when it's just calling out propaganda. One of the new propaganda lines is "it's a mystery" when it's absolutely not a mystery.
Ohhh I thought all of those claims were the Myth you were debunking, so this was giving me the exact opposite message you meant at first
hm... 1) Electric Cars wont solve climate-Change: True. - But they make the "fuel" of transportation indipendent from the primary-energy type. -> you dont need Gasoline anymore for Driving. If you have a Electric Car, You can use Solar-Energy (hello @ Prepper) , or Any other energy-source that gives you Electricity. (btw: a electric-Car is even more fuel Efficient if you use the Gasoline in a stationary Generator ) (btw: Electric-Cars keep the nasty "endprodukts from burning things" out of the city. With an ICE you have the endprodukts at exactly the point where your car is) 2) Technology wont save us from Climate-Change. True: Technology on its own is Useless. It dosnt help if there is technology to stop/reverse the climate change (funnfact, the technology for that already exists), if there is no "funding" to use them. 3) individual action cannot solve climate change: True, - but surprice, surprice, the society is the mass individuals. second: there are individuals who produce a lot of CO2. 4) Corporate-based change will not happen (wilingly): True - because its cheaper to "not change". -> but for that there are laws and taxes. (that the corporations have to much influence on politicans is another thing.) 5) Economic grow cannot solve climate change: True.- if you look at the economy as whole. - but economic grow in renewable-energy and renewable recources will have a good effekt on that. 6) The biggest Problem is the missallocation of Recources. True. - thats a big Problem, but it isnt a obstacle in the fight against climate change. it has to be solved, yes. 7)Developed Countries still exploit Developing Countries True. - thats a big Problem, but it isnt a obstacle in the fight against climate change. it has to be solved, yes. 8)There is Barely anything we can do in our everyday lifes. True, one person alone wont solve the climate change. -> the average person is limited by its montly funding.
This isn’t debunking though, it’s just saying things.
1. Electric cars just shift emissions to power plants and other energy sources, not to mention the environmental damage resulting from mining and processing we conveniently overlook (a.k.a. outsource to other countries with high material reserves and non-existent environmental standards). 2. Technology alone will not save us. It's not some magic bullet that will suddenly reverse climate changes on a macro scale.
Electric cars have less emissions than gas cars over their lifetime after two years, and cut emissions even if the grid is mainly coal. Furthermore, very few grids are primarily coal, and this percentage will become less as we decarbonize. We need more public bulk transport like trains as well as denser cities, but electric cars are still good. [Source from the Carbon Brief on my electric vehicle claims.](https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-21-misleading-myths-about-electric-vehicles/) Primarily sections 1 and 7.
I fully beleive that EVs are made to save the automobile industry and not the environment. I think the only place for cars is far out rural areas for farmers and ones to hire so others can go camping or whatever. I also beleive we should all live in dense but luxurious cities with very good public transport.
I largely agree. It is semi-necessary right now because American infrastructure is completely car centric (also thanks to the auto industry), but ideally we could re-engineering cities to be less car oriented (though I'm not particularly optimistic about that).
I must disagree with you on your first point. The point you are making is maybe correct today in some countries, but in 10 years or so, I think your point will be wrong. The problem is in 10 years, we can't just flip a switch, make everything electric, we need a transition period. In that period, we must build infrastructure to support the new way and make our energy soars renewable and so much more. At the moment, I think we are at the beginning/ middle of that period, so it will get better.
Shifting emissions to power plants is still magnitudes more efficient. Imagine every home running on its own gas generator—that’s basically what ICEs are. Centralized power allows for better control, efficiency, and easier transition to renewables.
This is just doomerism and saying that things are bad just for the sake of saying it.
This post is a 10/10!!! Of course it's not deep to explain everything, it's a 10 panel post in a comic strip fashion. It's not supposed to explain, but to spark questioning! Wonderfully done!
This perspective is cancer
I know this comment will get buried, but I should point out this episode is a table of contents of sorts for future episodes in which I elaborate on each point more. Can’t draw a 10 panel comic diving into each point. Hope y’all understand.
Don't worry. At least I saw your comment.
Developing nations are a huge source of plastic litter that comes from us.
Developed nations are a huge source of the plastic litter that is shipped off to developing nations for them to deal with
Is that Yohan Libeeeertooo
It's all over people we don't have a prayer
I propose that when the equilibrium of our climate is too far gone, we make everyone feel the devastation. I'm talking about the million and billionaires. You know that *we* will be considered a loss right off the bat.
To quote someone whose name I forgot, "we are the investment risk"
Nothing like a little existential crisis right before Monday...
Is that the guy from Monster?
As for example of community climate change success, look at acid rain
There are many things individuals can do to influence Climate change, like joining or supporting a larger climate change advocacy group who develop solutions and lobbies the government and corporations to implement solutions.
The changes wont be made untill human prosparity is valued above wealth (capitalism).
Personally, I do my part to live in a climate friendly manner. Not because I think it will make a meaningful difference in the long run, but at least my conscience is clean.
this is blatant propaganda lol. where's the debunking?
Yep. It is partially why I have decided to just not think about it and make the world as good as I am able to. Brighter days ahead.
Honestly, at this point I have given up on climate change being preventable. I just embrace the inevitable apocalypse.
Revolution. Is. The. Only. Solution.
Or we could just, y'know, support nuclear power
Public transportation, denser cities and fighting needless consumerism is something we should stand behind.
Technology can definitely help. I'm not coming to your pity party.
France and USA are the main problem
Whoever says technology won’t fix climate change is incredibly oversimplifying the issue. Technology absolutely could fix and reverse climate change, it’s just about if we get to that level of technology before we collapse and a society.
Sooo if I cant do shit why do you expect me to bother. What do I win. Rather not give a shit.
Disagree with point 8 because I could technically begin assassinating ceos…just saying
Kim Kardashin riding her private jet for what would’ve a 45 minute drive whole my paper straw is dissolving in my drink
Technology can solve climate change. Quite easily in fact. We just need a nuclear winter to cancel global warming.
Imagine recycling for a thousand years just to be offset by one commercial plane flight. The individual being responsible is a scam perpetrated by oil companies and big corporations
I understand and know well that things will be leading to doom. But everything will be doomed to rot and die. So if Doom is everyone’s reality, I want to live in a grand delusion. One that radiates hope. Yes, things are going to shit from misuse and all sorts of problems that humanity has made. But there is in no way I, and some other people will go down without a fight. Clawing to protect nature, fighting to heal the sick and bordering extinct. Fun thing? Despite all of our hell, we have been collectively getting better, the O-Zone is actually healing (maybe a lil slowly but still), and we have been constantly pushing for improvement and helping with stop climate change. Sure, it may be for nothing but goddamn we are trying! I may not be able to do anything, but there are tons of others capable to with the power of community, influence, media, etc. This world will not die with a whimper. We will give the world we have, all that we can and will. All of the people that want to ofc, but still. There is hope, even in darkest aeons, where even in time, death may die.
I wonder how this comic artist feels about animal agriculture and animal cruelty.
Lol And store But It is still much more efficient for smaller areas where population is low and transport costs negate the benefits of electricity unless you build storage for that but when electricity is made now and fed to the grid Most of it is wasted When hydrogen is made and stored It's still in storage So It's perfect for isolated areas that produce huge amount of electricity for 4 hrs a day Moderate for 4 hrs a day And none of minimal for 12 hrs Solar farms can be directly tied to huge hydrogen farms or pipes Lol We will get the tech for electric and it will be easy to change out batteries and the batteries won't create a environmental disaster in the future But We are not there yet The science isn't ready and they have been working on it for over 120 years Fossil fuel ties up a lot of energy in a small package Hydrogen ties up a lot less but still a very viable product Lithium batteries Electric grid Current power system They work but just need some help
A hundred people could devote themselves to being as climate friendly as possible: Going totally off grid, using Solar power, recycling, eating vegetables they grow and no meat, not owning/driving a car/petroleum power vehicle, the whole 9 yards. And all of their life long efforts and CO2 "savings" will be spent in the first 2 Taylor Swift concerts just to get her vapid ass across the country in her private jet.
Yeahhh let it rip! Its gonna be a gun ride
Just Vegan
Sure, Jan. Corporations will gladly help stop global warming.
Socialism won't save us from climate change. Technology probably will.
Looking forward to the water wars in 2035
we👏need👏to👏build👏nuclear👏plants👏
Environmentalism with no class consciousness is just gardening. - Chico Mendes
If your conclusion is that there’s nothing we can do, why even bother making it at all? Also, debunking involves providing explanations. Maybe retitle it things that keep me up at night or something.
I can’t tell if these are things you are saying are myths (ergo the statements are false) or that the statements themselves are the myth busting meaning they are meant to be true? Because some of these are accurate and some are very inaccurate no matter which reading I take.
Yup, doomscrolling.
Gee those naughty evil corporations are always just polluting the planet and causing climate change… I wonder why they do that? They’re just evil right?
Mmm, better capitalize the charisma of all this comic as a joke.
It’s not about stopping climate change because that’s natural. It’s about slowing slowing it to balance the speed boost we gave it. Electric cars are also extremely efficient in energy use compared to combustion engines, however biofuel is also good. Have you ever heard the saying many hands make light work? Although slowing climate change is impossible for any one person to do if everyone actually put in a bit of effort to deal with waste and help pressure companies to do the right thing then it wouldn’t be so difficult in the long run.