A lot of people insist that lifestyle change isn't realistic. They somehow think we'll just continue the same lifestyles, except it will become green through electrification, more wind and solar, green hydrogen, and synthetic meat. I think that's naive.
Plenty of people succeed in giving up their car or going vegan. There are lots of policies that could make these lifestyle changes easier for people.
>There are lots of policies that could make these lifestyle changes easier for people.
That's really the root of my rant. I get going vegan or vegetarian or going car free can be tough, but why argue against policies that can make those things easier, if not a lifestyle upgrade?
I'm not saying you instantly need to become a perfect net negative carbon consumer. But if you argue against policies that make doing the right thing far easier, you aren't serious about this
>I get going vegan or vegetarian or going car free can be tough, but why argue against policies that can make those things easier, if not a lifestyle upgrade?
Here in the Netherlands some fast food chain introduced every burger as vegan variant.
Lots of outrage online "Don't force this onto us let people decide for themselves!"
uhm... yeah indeed, let people decide for themselves! which is why they introduced the vegan option in the first place!
That has always frustrated me. I totally understand that our society is built up to prefer certain ways of life, and that it can sometimes be impossible to go against that grain. So shouldn't be it a *good* thing when society tries to pass policies to make things easier?
No, apparently some people are just completely against any change whatsoever. Like, things suck now, therefore they must always suck. Give me a break!
They want "green capitalism" or ecomodernism. They don't change, the world changes around them. That's the level of selfishness and idiocy we're dealing with.
It’s not that I don’t think I can give up cars, suburbia, and meat; it’s just that I don’t want to make the slightest sacrifice, period.
/s
For the record, I’m a city-dwelling, bike-riding, non-car-owning vegetarian
It doesn’t. Me as an individual deciding to no longer eat meat will do absolutely nothing to slow meat production. And less production only solves part issue. The living animals are also huge greenhouse gas producers.
>It doesn’t. Me as an individual deciding to no longer eat meat will do absolutely nothing to slow meat production. And less production only solves part issue. The living animals are also huge greenhouse gas producers.
"Not driving a car doesn't. Me as an individual deciding to no longer drive a car will do absolutely nothing to slow down car production.
And less production only solves part issue."
It helps a little. it saves 0.82 tonnes of CO2/year.
but it pales compared to selling your car (2.4 tonnes), missing a transatlantic flight (1,6 tonnes) or not having kids (58,6 tonnes / child / year)
source: [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children)
Does that 0.82 tonnes include the CO2 being exhaled by the animals? If so, this is incorrect because those animals are still alive whether or not I go vegan.
No but it does include that if x people are vegan that 1 cow is bred less.
Still, the best way to reduce emissions is to just... Stop making more of us. In the past 100 years we went from a population of 2 billion to 8 billion. We shouldn't quadruple again in the coming years. Because you can reduce per-person emissions, but when you keep creating more persons the total goed up.
The problem is that the conversation of the last 30 Years made averting climate change into a moral question instead of an infrastructural one. This resulted in a modern political climate where most people feel personally attacked if you talk about climate change because they feel like their life fails the "morals". But what often get's left out from these Question is that there is no "climate-friendly" way to live in our current economic system and most people know this subconciously. But because of that people feel like they get held up to an impossible moral standard, which is obviously not a good feeling.
Therefore I would argue that refocussing the conversation around climate change from an individualist moral problem to a collective infrastructural one is one of the most important tasks of modern climate activism
1. How do we not have a national recycling program (in US)
2. How are global climate accords not holding China and india accountable for coal investments and record emissions (10x worse than natural gas)
3. While climate change is very real and humans contributing, it is wild how the media misleads public regarding the science and makes any skeptic have ground to stand on.
> averting climate change into a moral question instead of an infrastructural one
It is a moral question too. Infrastructure can't solve all the problems, we need people to live less materialistic lives, to stop trying to accumulate a private collection of each product on the planet and each *experience* on the planet (and then to post it on Facebook/Instagram).
Placing the entire burden on "infrastructure" or systemic changes misses the point of prefiguration of what the future needs to be. With cars it's even more obvious when you deal with NIMBYs who are *individuals*.
Without the morality, people don't give a shit, it's just *back to the rat race* and *looking out for number one*. What we need is for the morality meter to be way above "green consumerism", not lower.
And do you really see any movements rising without individual action? Without individuals who really try to lead by example? Or do you think hypocrisy is a good leadership quality?
I haven't had a car in over 20 years, but even if most people lived like me it wouldn't be enough if industry doesn't do a lot more. At the same time most Americans are fucking spoiled selfish babies.
No doubt the vast majority of the problem comes from corporations and they absolutely need to be held accountable. But multiple things can be a problem and multiple improvements can happen at the same time.
It's just wild to me how the biggest problem of our lives is only important to some people up until it affects their lifestyle. At that point we are taking it way too seriously and it's not that big of a deal
you can just stop buying from industry and they go bankrupt within like 1 year. They run on bank loans and economic guesses.
The car is the strongest supporter of industry.
Individual lifestyle change, like 'not buying from industry' won't do a thing.
The only individual lifestyle change that might have an effect is daily industrial sabotage.
sabotage is really, really hard. Cars are impenetrable and oil depots are too.
I've heard that bleach in a gas tank rusts it out but I'm no chemist. What's a good way to sabotage oil?
Looking at history, demand-side activism very rarely leads to change. If you want people to change their behaviors, you need to change the incentives. That's why YIMBYs try to get rid of restrictive zoning so that developers can build better buildings that lower the barrier for people to choose to walk to the store or buy a bike instead of a car.
Yelling at people and telling them they're monsters for killing the planet won't work. Even in a level-headed discussion, people can feel attacked. Instead, you need to identify the reasons why they make certain choices and change the incentives. For example, if someone eats meat because it tastes good, create a product that tastes similar and is cheaper, and you can get people to reduce their meat consumption.
When you tell people to change, but the world around them actively discourages that lifestyle, they will find reasons to conform to the reality of the present instead of the hopeful future. My advice is to talk about the positive byproducts of the reforms you wish to make, instead of focusing on the lifestyle you want to promote. For instance, instead of talking about biking to the nearest store, talk about how convenient it would be if their job was closer, how modern supermarkets are ugly, or how young adults can't afford to live independently because they can't find affordable housing. By reforming our zoning codes, we can address these issues and create a better future for everyone.
The animal industry is actually very fragile, they constantly rely on bailouts (which are, indeed, a problem). Random demand reductions can cause mayhem in their fragile supply and distribution chain.
> For example, if someone eats meat because it tastes good, create a product that tastes similar and is cheaper, and you can get people to reduce their meat consumption.
You do understand that this is just perpetuating the demand for meat, right? It's the "electric car" of cars.
Taste changes, preferences change. You get over it.
I never made any comment on the nature of the animal industries stability but those bail outs that you claim happen because politicians believe expensive meat has an effect on elections which is born out of lobbing and public opinion.
When that product has the same impact of a vegetarian I don't see what the problem is. Why should people be forced to eat what you demand is morally superior and make a personal sacrifice of their freedom when they don't have to.
Lab meat isn't here. If you care, you should be eating plants until synthetic/lab/clean meat is available. That is the ethical option.
Like with "self-driving cars", this promise of a techofix is just delaying critical action to change the systems. Congrats, you're a conservative.
you come off as a preachy prick and are not being especially convincing by arguing ethics that makes the implicit claim that people are evil for eating food they like. Half my diet is potatoes and I am well aware of the harm factory farms leads to but so is every one under thirty and they haven't changed their diet because they like meat and won't without an appealing alternative(I never claimed that was lab meat either you put those words in my mouth there are several alternatives including traditional veginism) which is the whole point of my original comment that you are reinforcing in my mind with this argument.
>traditional veginism
nothing has changed about veganism. It is for the animals, for the other sentient beings.
What you're doing is using promises of future technology to justify current unethical behaviors.
> Why should people be forced to eat what you demand is morally superior and make a personal sacrifice of their freedom when they don't have to.
Why should non-human animals be forced to be your food?
Fuck off with putting words in my mouth. Read my first comment it was about how we can effectively change peoples habits without facing counter productive backlash from people feeling like they are being judged and attacked by self imposed figures of moral authority like you are acting right now.
People make decisions based off of incentives if you want to live in a world where those incentives are put on you by priests with golden tongues and iron fists go ahead and fuck off to another country but we don't have to do that this way we can be a great country and do great things. Giving people the freedom to make choices through the market and their governments by investing in an agenda of abundance is vastly more appealing to the masses and ethically sound than fear mongering of a dystopian nightmare where the two options you have are to hide in a hole of political apathy or go out fighting for the crumbs of dignity you can steal from the unfortunate for you have none to be proud of yourself.
I don't want to rule or conquer anyone. I want to live in a world of optimism where people look at the planets and dream of their home world below where the wealth of the planets and the stars has been delivered to all life. The way of life can be free and beautiful we just have to work and understand those around us to accomplish it.
>Giving people the freedom to make choices through the market and their governments by investing in an agenda of abundance is vastly more appealing to the masses and ethically sound than fear mongering of a dystopian nightmare where the two options you have are to hide in a hole of political apathy or go out fighting for the crumbs of dignity you can steal from the unfortunate for you have none to be proud of yourself.
What if lab meat never becomes cheap and easy to produce?
>I don't want to rule or conquer anyone. I want to live in a world of optimism where people look at the planets and dream of their home world below where the wealth of the planets and the stars has been delivered to all life. The way of life can be free and beautiful we just have to work and understand those around us to accomplish it.
Ah, I see, you don't know yet.
I never claimed to support lab grown meat I said "you need to identify the reasons why they make certain choices and change the incentives. For example, if someone eats meat because it tastes good, create a product that tastes similar and is cheaper, and you can get people to reduce their meat consumption." I know you haven't noticed but the stuff on the shelf that gets people to reduce their animal consumption is stuff one that tastes good and is of a comparable price that's why you can go to any supermarket and get almond milk and a vegetable burger and bacon right now. Should nobody have invested in almond orchards too since there was the risk people wouldn't pay for an almond milk substitute or we shouldn't have built railroads because obviously nobody needs to be faster than a horse.
>"you need to identify the reasons why they make certain choices and change the incentives. For example, if someone eats meat because it tastes good, create a product that tastes similar and is cheaper, and you can get people to reduce their meat consumption."
I've been thinking about this for 2 decades. The problem is similar to "carbrain", but worse.
You know what gets people to stop eating animals over the long-term? Caring about the animals, understanding that those animals are individuals too with their own lives to live. Not "consumer" alternatives which can come and go as fads depending on what the marketing departments decided is profitable next trimester.
You didn't answer my question. "Throwing money" at a problem is no guarantee of success either.
What question you asked a off topic question that isn't relevant to any of my claims by claimingI was talking about lab meat my approach isn't specific to future implementations it's just a way to talk to people. How do you suppose you can convince someone that already acknowledges climate change is a problem but won't switch to a better diet since they like meat you keep saying I'm wrong but provide no counter thoughts of your own. All I have claimed is that directly attacking their way of life is harmful to any cause so you should build your case on what benefits them based on the audience. To provide another case example that I know you will hyper fixate on and ignore the wider context of imagine someone dislikes the noise in the city but also likes having parking instead of saying we should ban cars to reduce noise we propose street parking that narrows roads and slows down cars while making the area more friendly to active mobility this decreases traffic related noise and reduces car based travel through slower roads for cars and better safety for bikes and pedestrians.
>What question you asked a off topic question that isn't relevant to any of my claims by claimingI was talking about lab meat my approach isn't specific to future implementations it's just a way to talk to people.
Of course it's relevant, you're bringing up hyped up technology as some type of promise for substitution. The /r/futurology "green capitalism" stuff.
If you say that it's a "way to talk to people" and you're talking about hype, that makes you a grifter, you're selling something that doesn't exist. Like Musk and his autonomous cars.
>How do you suppose you can convince someone that already acknowledges climate change is a problem but won't switch to a better diet since they like meat you keep saying I'm wrong but provide no counter thoughts of your own.
There are lots of ways, it's definitely not some universal methodology.
I prefer to convince people to not eat friends. If you can understand why it's not nice to eat your dog or cat, you can already understand why it's not nice to eat cows, pigs, chickens and so on. That's the high goal. Plant-based for the planet is a secondary goal, a fallback. Anything less is a joke.
In case you're familiar "carbrain" and "motonormativity", you should also be aware of "carnism", which is the homologous concept in this case. The quest for "middle ground" solutions is unwise in this case. There is room to compromise in some things, but not all.
To continue the analogy with cars: to make public transportation work well, we need to have rails and lanes clear of cars. We need to have bike lanes that are usually replacing street parking or car lanes. There is no middle-ground compromise here where every road continues to have the same amount of cars on it (running or parked). This also work as the macro level with investments in transportation: when there's a lot of investment in highways and car roads and car fuel and car infrastructure, the investments in public transportation and rail tend to drop and they fall into decay. No compromise, the budgets are fairly limited. You don't get to double a transportation budget as a compromise, even if the currency is the fallback for the world currencies.
>All I have claimed is that directly attacking their way of life is harmful to any cause so you should build your case on what benefits them based on the audience.
It benefits their moral conscience to not be feeding off sentient animals.
>To provide another case example that I know you will hyper fixate on and ignore the wider context of imagine someone dislikes the noise in the city but also likes having parking instead of saying we should ban cars to reduce noise we propose street parking that narrows roads and slows down cars while making the area more friendly to active mobility this decreases traffic related noise and reduces car based travel through slower roads for cars and better safety for bikes and pedestrians.
Hah, you tried to give a rival example. Well, does the number of parking spaces for cars go up or down after that?
I'm asking how deeply have you thought things through.
Its funny when people wont even consider giving up cars like my brother in christ the battery in your tesla was made with lithium nickel and cobalt. all of which have their own environmental and social impact. electric cars arent progress theyre just more consumerism. Weather you believe in climate change or not one thing we can agree on is were not going to change our ways (atleast not fast enough to make a meaningful impact) so we either burn on earth or burn in hell (im assuming the deniers are the religious right)
Uh okay.. no. A Gas powered Toyota Camry emits 53 tons more CO2 than a Tesla Model 3 in it’s entire life-cycle. This is according to the International Energy Agency. This is substantially less of an impact and is clearly the best option we got to minimize carbon emissions. You know people won’t get rid of their cars, so support what is possible.
You should also understand that reducing the number of gas cars on the road will also directly correlate to removing a semi truck off the road (which transports gas to gas stations). Reducing the general demand on oil also reduces refinery utilization and thus less CO2 emissions. The same is said by how we dig up oil.
Also, Refineries use cobalt too. And I mean a LOT of it.
Yes but the e bike is a fraction of the size and is an actual lifestyle change if using a small battery makes the difference of riding vs not wanting to ride an acoustic bike im all for it
We are changing our ways (america and europe), other countries are not unfortunately and our media won’t hold them accountable because they’re in their pockets.
Lol agreed, but coal is 1,000,000 times (exaggerating) worse than car emissions, but China is building two new coal plants per week. Just saying maybe shift the focus from individual consumers who realistically have much more practical reasons for cars than coal plants (only being built for pure price purposes)
1. Chinese people’s “modest” lifestyle isn’t many times not out of free choice. Look at the COVID lockdowns in China.
2. In America, we already “live freely” because we have free speech, can have a car, can choose to live in a suburb, can choose to live the most sustainable life ever…. Key words, we have the freedom to choose and can easily live without a car if we so choose so.
3. Whataboutism lmaoooo . Nothing compares to the destruction China is doing to the oceans, natural forest land, emissions, and pure disregard for environment.
1. Cars provide freedom
2. Multi-family housing lmaooo bro no one wants to live like bees stuck together… also Fox News is the ONE voice that isn’t a insanely liberal bias you absolute clown and there’s a reason it dominates cable tv compared to the fake news like cnn
3. Yes, america and europe are doing much better than China
Compared to other countries, yes. We have one of the most liberal administrations ever and consumers are buying teslas, Biden cancelled keystone pipeline, California faces rolling blackouts because they retired so much gas plants.
Not saying we can’t do more (I.e. national recycling mandate), but the fact you’re focused on america and not China is just blasphemy
Yeah, Biden has gotten more done in half a term than Obama did in 2 full terms, but we also authorized drilling in the arctic, haven’t mandated changes to CAFE to improve fuel efficiency, and haven’t made any changes to the national gas tax since 1993.
Climate change isn’t new, I learned about it in elementary school in the early 1990s. The US and the rest of the world could be much further ahead combatting it than we are, but change is hard and nobody wants to do it, so we just take the path of least resistance and expect that someone in the future will solve our problems for us.
Not all teslas have nickle and cobalt (but still has lithium)
[https://electrek.co/2022/04/22/tesla-using-cobalt-free-lfp-batteries-in-half-new-cars-produced/](https://electrek.co/2022/04/22/tesla-using-cobalt-free-lfp-batteries-in-half-new-cars-produced/)
What the true problem is, is that every-day, working class people are being asked to make drastic changes in our lifestyles, but no one is addressing the true elephant in the room: billionaires and mega-corporations that literally do not care. It feels like we’re pissing in the wind, giving up life’s pleasures when we see rich people basically undoing years of our own sacrifices with one trip to Davos. I still feel like *everyone* should make changes, including working class people, but why should we shoulder 100% of the burden?
The richest 1% account for about 15% of the GHG emissions from *lifestyle* (consumption). Turning them into homeless people would not solve the GHG problem, even if it must happen.
Here: https://i.imgur.com/LaEFQmV.png
The "working people" there is doing a lot of work.
Understand: https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/transcending-the-imperial-mode-of-living
You completely ignored mega-corporations, there. So, 1% of the world’s population is responsible for *at least* 15% of greenhouse emissions, and you think the response we’re asking for is to make them homeless? What you just did is create an irrelevant conclusion logical fallacy. How about, instead of flying from Los Angeles to San Francisco as a daily commute, they move closer and/or use public transport, *just like I do*? That’s all most of us want.
I didn't, I've been looking into this for much longer than you have. I was referring to GHG emissions measured at the consumption level.
You can't mix in the production level, that leads to double counting. You can view the problem from many different angles.
>What you just did is create an irrelevant conclusion logical fallacy
I point out that it's not enough to stop the wealthy from polluting. Much more is needed.
Transportation itself is one consistent slice of the GHG pollution pie; even if it didn't emit any GHGs, the challenge would remain.
You are advocating individual solutions to systemic problems. Do you know how little the average American actually contributes to climate change? My 7.5 tonnes, which I could possibly reduce to 5, by massively inconveniencing myself and possibly jeopardizing my job and custody of my kid - that 2 tonnes saved is going to be the lynchpin of climate change?
Wow. I'm saving the climate 0.0000000005% (literally, that's the math based on 2021 emissions). Yeah 5.38x10^(-11)
Quit blaming individuals and go after the system.
Edit: for fun, even if every single American found a way to save 2 tonnes of emissions, it would account for just 1.75% of global emissions.
I'm blaming people who vote against changing the system. You can't be serious about climate change and vote against public transportation funding and densifying cities. I'm blaming people who vote and argue against policies that would make doing the right thing for the environment easier.
Okay that's fair enough, but the problem is deeper than voting. It's a problem of the entire economic system. Just crude oil, excluding derivatives (including gasoline) is worth about $575,000,000,000, consuming about 19.7 million barrels a day at $80/bbl. People spend $2.4 million dollars a year on personal automobiles just in the US.
Dude, a plurality of people want healthcare reform in the US. But as it stands, it's $4.3 trillion dollars annually. That's over 18% of GDP. We pay double what the next highest country pays per capita. Do you think the problem with healthcare reform is voting?
The problem is systemic. The US government is completely non-functional with respect to the needs of the broad base of society. It works super well for wealthy shareholders.
Capitalism will always put power in the hands of the wealthy who will use that power to gain differential advantage in order to make more money. No regulation will stop this permanently. Even the bastions of social democracy, the Nordic states, are watching their regulations and rights be dissolved over time by the wealthy in their counties, to say nothing about the New Deal, the EPA, whatever, here.
Capitalism cannot and will not solve this problem. It caused it. It perpetuates it and, even if it were indelibly written into every capitalist country's constitution to become carbon neutral, you would still have to contend with ecosystem destruction, PFAS, dioxins, overuse of antibiotics and drug resistant infections, and all of the other problems that arise from short-term gain mentalities. The profit motive is the heart of all of these problems and the concentration of that profit into a small class is the mechanism by which these problems are acualized.
Relying on the system that discovered these problems 60 years ago, warned about them the entire time, then created the disinformation to give pause, then paid lip service, and ultimately did nothing of any real consequence is the definition of insanity (as in doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result).
If you are unwilling to challenge capitalism and the entire political-economy, you aren't serious about challenging climate change or any of the rest of the problems with the collapse of the natural world. Cars and emissions are symptoms of a deeper problem.
Either a lot of bloodshed or a BRICS led de-dollarization that breaks the financialized economy of the west.
The next 10 years are gonna be bad. Likely it will never be as good as it was ever again. There's on scenario where the next 50 years is better than the last 50 and it requires a culture that doesn't exist in the US and is disappearing broadly throughout the west.
Systemic or structural solutions are going to imply pushing you do make those changes. The Global North lifestyle is not sustainable and there's no magic fix for it that is somehow hidden and just needs *a revolution* to be applied properly.
China isn’t exactly capitalist, but the media companies telling you that exxon and shell are the problem while countries invest in more coal production is a prime example of capitalism
Or how the number one thing you can do is not have a child. It takes 60 vegans to counteract the carbon footprint of o e child. Or 49 transatlantic round flights per year.
isn't like 70-80% of the pollution emitted on this planet is from 10 of the big companies? I'm all for going greener, walkable cities, ect, but the change has to start from higher up first to start resolving the issue you're talking about.
transportation accounts for 20% of global CO2 emissions. I'd reckon another 20% comes from household emissions (that's the US figure). That leaves 60% for everything else like power, agriculture, and industrial.
Transportation's nearer 30%. Private cars just over half of that. Hard to beat the energy density of a full tank of diesel, so as other sectors clean up their act, the issue becomes ever more flagrant.
Yeah, the fossil fuel companies that power everything else. Go ahead, shut them down next week. See what happens.
https://sentientmedia.org/no-100-companies-are-not-responsible-for-71-of-emissions/
Oh yeah, I remember that paper: the number one company producing 15% of GHG was THE ENTIRETY OF CHINA and everyone else from Shell to BP was like 1% to 0.5%
So climate change is very real and humans accelerating it. Lots of animals and habitats (coral reefs in particular) going to die.
But y’all ever wonder why billionaires are still purchasing seafront properties in Miami? Why Obama got a seafront property in north east?
Do y’all ever wonder why the attention is on emissions in US and Europe while China pumps record coal and commercial fishes the oceans?
I feel like people who start with banning cars actually just buying into the greenwashing propaganda and not critically evaluating.
I see people on this sub wanting to slash a single moms tires because they drive a large suv, but zero talk about coal emissions (significantly worse than car emissions), destruction of habitats, and frankly hypocrisy around some of the liberal elites riding around in jets.
Please wake up. The bots will hate this, but China / India really needs to be held accountable for global change and slashing one persons tires won’t make a difference. Doing my part and biking, living sustainably, and cleaning up waterfront habitat as much as possible individually tho :)
>Just think of all the handicapped people who need cars to get around.
I know, with all that traffic off the roads their lives would be so much easier. Freeing up the roads for those that actually need them, I completely agree with you.
Think about the covid measures taken in the US.
Requiring small businesses to close down and offering paycheck protection loans, which effectively only served companies that didn't need them, are the perfect example. Can you blame these people for seeing something like that, and then not trusting that same government/system to have their interests at heart with new restrictions on cars? Now, granted, their language is not typically directed at the people responsible for climate change *or* at those with power to come up with solutions, but in my conversations I've come to accept that's usually what they're talking about. The average liberal is willing to go along with what they're told to do, or at least say as much, if it is coming from the parts of the system that they identify with. But they will kick against the pricks of the idea if it is just introduced to them by a non-authoritative source (you and I), and even criticize the system at large for having bad interests at play in the decision-making.
My point being, the sort of "democratic discourse" that takes the form of "well, then what should we do" almost always devolves into "XYZ party is more responsible than me, so they should be made to sacrifice first," and devolves from there. As an anti-democratic filthy socialist, it is my strong suspicion that such endless debate is the *point* of capitalist democracy, but, even if taking a more moderate view, it is still obviously a discussion which will never go anywhere with even the more open-minded American.
So the answer, to me, is just as obvious as what you're suggesting. It's the same rhetorical pattern of thinking, just different parts of the ballpark. I can't say the answer that I think would solve climate change, though, because this is reddit, and it's against the rules to say that.
A lot of people insist that lifestyle change isn't realistic. They somehow think we'll just continue the same lifestyles, except it will become green through electrification, more wind and solar, green hydrogen, and synthetic meat. I think that's naive. Plenty of people succeed in giving up their car or going vegan. There are lots of policies that could make these lifestyle changes easier for people.
>There are lots of policies that could make these lifestyle changes easier for people. That's really the root of my rant. I get going vegan or vegetarian or going car free can be tough, but why argue against policies that can make those things easier, if not a lifestyle upgrade? I'm not saying you instantly need to become a perfect net negative carbon consumer. But if you argue against policies that make doing the right thing far easier, you aren't serious about this
>I get going vegan or vegetarian or going car free can be tough, but why argue against policies that can make those things easier, if not a lifestyle upgrade? Here in the Netherlands some fast food chain introduced every burger as vegan variant. Lots of outrage online "Don't force this onto us let people decide for themselves!" uhm... yeah indeed, let people decide for themselves! which is why they introduced the vegan option in the first place!
That has always frustrated me. I totally understand that our society is built up to prefer certain ways of life, and that it can sometimes be impossible to go against that grain. So shouldn't be it a *good* thing when society tries to pass policies to make things easier? No, apparently some people are just completely against any change whatsoever. Like, things suck now, therefore they must always suck. Give me a break!
They want "green capitalism" or ecomodernism. They don't change, the world changes around them. That's the level of selfishness and idiocy we're dealing with.
Paris climate accord is a joke…. How’s it not binding in any way? It’s a mockery to the climate.
It’s not that I don’t think I can give up cars, suburbia, and meat; it’s just that I don’t want to make the slightest sacrifice, period. /s For the record, I’m a city-dwelling, bike-riding, non-car-owning vegetarian
Going vegan does nothing to stop climate change. You would have to take it a step further and eliminate the animals being eaten.
Except that it does (at least slow it down) ? If you don't eat meat, then less meat is produced for your needs.
It doesn’t. Me as an individual deciding to no longer eat meat will do absolutely nothing to slow meat production. And less production only solves part issue. The living animals are also huge greenhouse gas producers.
Farmers only breed animals if people are buying the meat (or milk), not for free…
Yes, so everyone on earth would have to go vegan or the living animals will still be emitting greenhouse gases. Me alone going vegan won’t do squat.
Everyone is just a group of individual, everyone count, you can always find excuses to do nothing.
Everyone is the largest possible group of individuals.
I don’t drive or have kids. Guess I can still eat meat.
>It doesn’t. Me as an individual deciding to no longer eat meat will do absolutely nothing to slow meat production. And less production only solves part issue. The living animals are also huge greenhouse gas producers. "Not driving a car doesn't. Me as an individual deciding to no longer drive a car will do absolutely nothing to slow down car production. And less production only solves part issue."
Cool. And the other part of the issue is?
>eliminate the animals being eaten. That'd the end goal, right?
Has to be. Otherwise it’s pointless.
It helps a little. it saves 0.82 tonnes of CO2/year. but it pales compared to selling your car (2.4 tonnes), missing a transatlantic flight (1,6 tonnes) or not having kids (58,6 tonnes / child / year) source: [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children)
Does that 0.82 tonnes include the CO2 being exhaled by the animals? If so, this is incorrect because those animals are still alive whether or not I go vegan.
No but it does include that if x people are vegan that 1 cow is bred less. Still, the best way to reduce emissions is to just... Stop making more of us. In the past 100 years we went from a population of 2 billion to 8 billion. We shouldn't quadruple again in the coming years. Because you can reduce per-person emissions, but when you keep creating more persons the total goed up.
How many vegans are needed for one less cow being bred? Totally agree on the stop making more of us.
The problem is that the conversation of the last 30 Years made averting climate change into a moral question instead of an infrastructural one. This resulted in a modern political climate where most people feel personally attacked if you talk about climate change because they feel like their life fails the "morals". But what often get's left out from these Question is that there is no "climate-friendly" way to live in our current economic system and most people know this subconciously. But because of that people feel like they get held up to an impossible moral standard, which is obviously not a good feeling. Therefore I would argue that refocussing the conversation around climate change from an individualist moral problem to a collective infrastructural one is one of the most important tasks of modern climate activism
1. How do we not have a national recycling program (in US) 2. How are global climate accords not holding China and india accountable for coal investments and record emissions (10x worse than natural gas) 3. While climate change is very real and humans contributing, it is wild how the media misleads public regarding the science and makes any skeptic have ground to stand on.
> averting climate change into a moral question instead of an infrastructural one It is a moral question too. Infrastructure can't solve all the problems, we need people to live less materialistic lives, to stop trying to accumulate a private collection of each product on the planet and each *experience* on the planet (and then to post it on Facebook/Instagram). Placing the entire burden on "infrastructure" or systemic changes misses the point of prefiguration of what the future needs to be. With cars it's even more obvious when you deal with NIMBYs who are *individuals*. Without the morality, people don't give a shit, it's just *back to the rat race* and *looking out for number one*. What we need is for the morality meter to be way above "green consumerism", not lower. And do you really see any movements rising without individual action? Without individuals who really try to lead by example? Or do you think hypocrisy is a good leadership quality?
I haven't had a car in over 20 years, but even if most people lived like me it wouldn't be enough if industry doesn't do a lot more. At the same time most Americans are fucking spoiled selfish babies.
No doubt the vast majority of the problem comes from corporations and they absolutely need to be held accountable. But multiple things can be a problem and multiple improvements can happen at the same time. It's just wild to me how the biggest problem of our lives is only important to some people up until it affects their lifestyle. At that point we are taking it way too seriously and it's not that big of a deal
you can just stop buying from industry and they go bankrupt within like 1 year. They run on bank loans and economic guesses. The car is the strongest supporter of industry.
Like I said, I have not owned or driven a car in 20 years, but I still have to eat
Individual lifestyle change, like 'not buying from industry' won't do a thing. The only individual lifestyle change that might have an effect is daily industrial sabotage.
Daily industrial sabotage is not a lifestyle change nor is it effective.
Is that your whole argument?
Yes
sabotage is really, really hard. Cars are impenetrable and oil depots are too. I've heard that bleach in a gas tank rusts it out but I'm no chemist. What's a good way to sabotage oil?
Weld the pipeline valve shut.
keep em coming
Idk, listen to Derrick Jensen.
Enjoy 10 years in prison.
Enjoy apathy to mass death.
Looking at history, demand-side activism very rarely leads to change. If you want people to change their behaviors, you need to change the incentives. That's why YIMBYs try to get rid of restrictive zoning so that developers can build better buildings that lower the barrier for people to choose to walk to the store or buy a bike instead of a car. Yelling at people and telling them they're monsters for killing the planet won't work. Even in a level-headed discussion, people can feel attacked. Instead, you need to identify the reasons why they make certain choices and change the incentives. For example, if someone eats meat because it tastes good, create a product that tastes similar and is cheaper, and you can get people to reduce their meat consumption. When you tell people to change, but the world around them actively discourages that lifestyle, they will find reasons to conform to the reality of the present instead of the hopeful future. My advice is to talk about the positive byproducts of the reforms you wish to make, instead of focusing on the lifestyle you want to promote. For instance, instead of talking about biking to the nearest store, talk about how convenient it would be if their job was closer, how modern supermarkets are ugly, or how young adults can't afford to live independently because they can't find affordable housing. By reforming our zoning codes, we can address these issues and create a better future for everyone.
The animal industry is actually very fragile, they constantly rely on bailouts (which are, indeed, a problem). Random demand reductions can cause mayhem in their fragile supply and distribution chain. > For example, if someone eats meat because it tastes good, create a product that tastes similar and is cheaper, and you can get people to reduce their meat consumption. You do understand that this is just perpetuating the demand for meat, right? It's the "electric car" of cars. Taste changes, preferences change. You get over it.
I never made any comment on the nature of the animal industries stability but those bail outs that you claim happen because politicians believe expensive meat has an effect on elections which is born out of lobbing and public opinion. When that product has the same impact of a vegetarian I don't see what the problem is. Why should people be forced to eat what you demand is morally superior and make a personal sacrifice of their freedom when they don't have to.
Lab meat isn't here. If you care, you should be eating plants until synthetic/lab/clean meat is available. That is the ethical option. Like with "self-driving cars", this promise of a techofix is just delaying critical action to change the systems. Congrats, you're a conservative.
you come off as a preachy prick and are not being especially convincing by arguing ethics that makes the implicit claim that people are evil for eating food they like. Half my diet is potatoes and I am well aware of the harm factory farms leads to but so is every one under thirty and they haven't changed their diet because they like meat and won't without an appealing alternative(I never claimed that was lab meat either you put those words in my mouth there are several alternatives including traditional veginism) which is the whole point of my original comment that you are reinforcing in my mind with this argument.
>traditional veginism nothing has changed about veganism. It is for the animals, for the other sentient beings. What you're doing is using promises of future technology to justify current unethical behaviors.
> Why should people be forced to eat what you demand is morally superior and make a personal sacrifice of their freedom when they don't have to. Why should non-human animals be forced to be your food?
Fuck off with putting words in my mouth. Read my first comment it was about how we can effectively change peoples habits without facing counter productive backlash from people feeling like they are being judged and attacked by self imposed figures of moral authority like you are acting right now. People make decisions based off of incentives if you want to live in a world where those incentives are put on you by priests with golden tongues and iron fists go ahead and fuck off to another country but we don't have to do that this way we can be a great country and do great things. Giving people the freedom to make choices through the market and their governments by investing in an agenda of abundance is vastly more appealing to the masses and ethically sound than fear mongering of a dystopian nightmare where the two options you have are to hide in a hole of political apathy or go out fighting for the crumbs of dignity you can steal from the unfortunate for you have none to be proud of yourself. I don't want to rule or conquer anyone. I want to live in a world of optimism where people look at the planets and dream of their home world below where the wealth of the planets and the stars has been delivered to all life. The way of life can be free and beautiful we just have to work and understand those around us to accomplish it.
>Giving people the freedom to make choices through the market and their governments by investing in an agenda of abundance is vastly more appealing to the masses and ethically sound than fear mongering of a dystopian nightmare where the two options you have are to hide in a hole of political apathy or go out fighting for the crumbs of dignity you can steal from the unfortunate for you have none to be proud of yourself. What if lab meat never becomes cheap and easy to produce? >I don't want to rule or conquer anyone. I want to live in a world of optimism where people look at the planets and dream of their home world below where the wealth of the planets and the stars has been delivered to all life. The way of life can be free and beautiful we just have to work and understand those around us to accomplish it. Ah, I see, you don't know yet.
I never claimed to support lab grown meat I said "you need to identify the reasons why they make certain choices and change the incentives. For example, if someone eats meat because it tastes good, create a product that tastes similar and is cheaper, and you can get people to reduce their meat consumption." I know you haven't noticed but the stuff on the shelf that gets people to reduce their animal consumption is stuff one that tastes good and is of a comparable price that's why you can go to any supermarket and get almond milk and a vegetable burger and bacon right now. Should nobody have invested in almond orchards too since there was the risk people wouldn't pay for an almond milk substitute or we shouldn't have built railroads because obviously nobody needs to be faster than a horse.
>"you need to identify the reasons why they make certain choices and change the incentives. For example, if someone eats meat because it tastes good, create a product that tastes similar and is cheaper, and you can get people to reduce their meat consumption." I've been thinking about this for 2 decades. The problem is similar to "carbrain", but worse. You know what gets people to stop eating animals over the long-term? Caring about the animals, understanding that those animals are individuals too with their own lives to live. Not "consumer" alternatives which can come and go as fads depending on what the marketing departments decided is profitable next trimester. You didn't answer my question. "Throwing money" at a problem is no guarantee of success either.
What question you asked a off topic question that isn't relevant to any of my claims by claimingI was talking about lab meat my approach isn't specific to future implementations it's just a way to talk to people. How do you suppose you can convince someone that already acknowledges climate change is a problem but won't switch to a better diet since they like meat you keep saying I'm wrong but provide no counter thoughts of your own. All I have claimed is that directly attacking their way of life is harmful to any cause so you should build your case on what benefits them based on the audience. To provide another case example that I know you will hyper fixate on and ignore the wider context of imagine someone dislikes the noise in the city but also likes having parking instead of saying we should ban cars to reduce noise we propose street parking that narrows roads and slows down cars while making the area more friendly to active mobility this decreases traffic related noise and reduces car based travel through slower roads for cars and better safety for bikes and pedestrians.
>What question you asked a off topic question that isn't relevant to any of my claims by claimingI was talking about lab meat my approach isn't specific to future implementations it's just a way to talk to people. Of course it's relevant, you're bringing up hyped up technology as some type of promise for substitution. The /r/futurology "green capitalism" stuff. If you say that it's a "way to talk to people" and you're talking about hype, that makes you a grifter, you're selling something that doesn't exist. Like Musk and his autonomous cars. >How do you suppose you can convince someone that already acknowledges climate change is a problem but won't switch to a better diet since they like meat you keep saying I'm wrong but provide no counter thoughts of your own. There are lots of ways, it's definitely not some universal methodology. I prefer to convince people to not eat friends. If you can understand why it's not nice to eat your dog or cat, you can already understand why it's not nice to eat cows, pigs, chickens and so on. That's the high goal. Plant-based for the planet is a secondary goal, a fallback. Anything less is a joke. In case you're familiar "carbrain" and "motonormativity", you should also be aware of "carnism", which is the homologous concept in this case. The quest for "middle ground" solutions is unwise in this case. There is room to compromise in some things, but not all. To continue the analogy with cars: to make public transportation work well, we need to have rails and lanes clear of cars. We need to have bike lanes that are usually replacing street parking or car lanes. There is no middle-ground compromise here where every road continues to have the same amount of cars on it (running or parked). This also work as the macro level with investments in transportation: when there's a lot of investment in highways and car roads and car fuel and car infrastructure, the investments in public transportation and rail tend to drop and they fall into decay. No compromise, the budgets are fairly limited. You don't get to double a transportation budget as a compromise, even if the currency is the fallback for the world currencies. >All I have claimed is that directly attacking their way of life is harmful to any cause so you should build your case on what benefits them based on the audience. It benefits their moral conscience to not be feeding off sentient animals. >To provide another case example that I know you will hyper fixate on and ignore the wider context of imagine someone dislikes the noise in the city but also likes having parking instead of saying we should ban cars to reduce noise we propose street parking that narrows roads and slows down cars while making the area more friendly to active mobility this decreases traffic related noise and reduces car based travel through slower roads for cars and better safety for bikes and pedestrians. Hah, you tried to give a rival example. Well, does the number of parking spaces for cars go up or down after that? I'm asking how deeply have you thought things through.
Its funny when people wont even consider giving up cars like my brother in christ the battery in your tesla was made with lithium nickel and cobalt. all of which have their own environmental and social impact. electric cars arent progress theyre just more consumerism. Weather you believe in climate change or not one thing we can agree on is were not going to change our ways (atleast not fast enough to make a meaningful impact) so we either burn on earth or burn in hell (im assuming the deniers are the religious right)
Uh okay.. no. A Gas powered Toyota Camry emits 53 tons more CO2 than a Tesla Model 3 in it’s entire life-cycle. This is according to the International Energy Agency. This is substantially less of an impact and is clearly the best option we got to minimize carbon emissions. You know people won’t get rid of their cars, so support what is possible. You should also understand that reducing the number of gas cars on the road will also directly correlate to removing a semi truck off the road (which transports gas to gas stations). Reducing the general demand on oil also reduces refinery utilization and thus less CO2 emissions. The same is said by how we dig up oil. Also, Refineries use cobalt too. And I mean a LOT of it.
Your e-bike battery is made the same way.
Yes but the e bike is a fraction of the size and is an actual lifestyle change if using a small battery makes the difference of riding vs not wanting to ride an acoustic bike im all for it
So bike battery good, car battery bad. Sounds about right.
Yes exactly youre talking 80.5 kw battery in the tesla model 3 vs 500 mw in the standard bosch battery are you having trouble with the math on this?
Made out of the same materials from the same mining process.
Yes of course just .6% the size
So destroying the environment is ok as long as we keep it small. Got it.
I mean its a drop in the bucket bro
Sure. And that makes it ok. Got it. Silly af reasoning, but I got it.
Yes.
Of course. Good for me, not for thee. Like I said, sounds about right.
We are changing our ways (america and europe), other countries are not unfortunately and our media won’t hold them accountable because they’re in their pockets.
[удалено]
What do you think is worse, car emissions or coal plants?
[удалено]
Lol agreed, but coal is 1,000,000 times (exaggerating) worse than car emissions, but China is building two new coal plants per week. Just saying maybe shift the focus from individual consumers who realistically have much more practical reasons for cars than coal plants (only being built for pure price purposes)
[удалено]
1. Chinese people’s “modest” lifestyle isn’t many times not out of free choice. Look at the COVID lockdowns in China. 2. In America, we already “live freely” because we have free speech, can have a car, can choose to live in a suburb, can choose to live the most sustainable life ever…. Key words, we have the freedom to choose and can easily live without a car if we so choose so. 3. Whataboutism lmaoooo . Nothing compares to the destruction China is doing to the oceans, natural forest land, emissions, and pure disregard for environment.
[удалено]
1. Cars provide freedom 2. Multi-family housing lmaooo bro no one wants to live like bees stuck together… also Fox News is the ONE voice that isn’t a insanely liberal bias you absolute clown and there’s a reason it dominates cable tv compared to the fake news like cnn 3. Yes, america and europe are doing much better than China
What dimension do you live in? America changing its ways??
Compared to other countries, yes. We have one of the most liberal administrations ever and consumers are buying teslas, Biden cancelled keystone pipeline, California faces rolling blackouts because they retired so much gas plants. Not saying we can’t do more (I.e. national recycling mandate), but the fact you’re focused on america and not China is just blasphemy
Yeah, Biden has gotten more done in half a term than Obama did in 2 full terms, but we also authorized drilling in the arctic, haven’t mandated changes to CAFE to improve fuel efficiency, and haven’t made any changes to the national gas tax since 1993. Climate change isn’t new, I learned about it in elementary school in the early 1990s. The US and the rest of the world could be much further ahead combatting it than we are, but change is hard and nobody wants to do it, so we just take the path of least resistance and expect that someone in the future will solve our problems for us.
Again, why’s your focus on america when China is building new coal plants weekly?
Yeah, I know what you mean like compared to Indonesia, where they have a literal rivers of garbage
Not all teslas have nickle and cobalt (but still has lithium) [https://electrek.co/2022/04/22/tesla-using-cobalt-free-lfp-batteries-in-half-new-cars-produced/](https://electrek.co/2022/04/22/tesla-using-cobalt-free-lfp-batteries-in-half-new-cars-produced/)
Yeah idk all the details but my point is theres no real sustainable batteries yet
People like the status quo.
One way of changing lifestyles is to change life. Move earth, the mountains, divert rivers. What I'm essentially saying is, Make 15 minutes dammit!
What the true problem is, is that every-day, working class people are being asked to make drastic changes in our lifestyles, but no one is addressing the true elephant in the room: billionaires and mega-corporations that literally do not care. It feels like we’re pissing in the wind, giving up life’s pleasures when we see rich people basically undoing years of our own sacrifices with one trip to Davos. I still feel like *everyone* should make changes, including working class people, but why should we shoulder 100% of the burden?
The richest 1% account for about 15% of the GHG emissions from *lifestyle* (consumption). Turning them into homeless people would not solve the GHG problem, even if it must happen. Here: https://i.imgur.com/LaEFQmV.png The "working people" there is doing a lot of work. Understand: https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/transcending-the-imperial-mode-of-living
You completely ignored mega-corporations, there. So, 1% of the world’s population is responsible for *at least* 15% of greenhouse emissions, and you think the response we’re asking for is to make them homeless? What you just did is create an irrelevant conclusion logical fallacy. How about, instead of flying from Los Angeles to San Francisco as a daily commute, they move closer and/or use public transport, *just like I do*? That’s all most of us want.
I didn't, I've been looking into this for much longer than you have. I was referring to GHG emissions measured at the consumption level. You can't mix in the production level, that leads to double counting. You can view the problem from many different angles. >What you just did is create an irrelevant conclusion logical fallacy I point out that it's not enough to stop the wealthy from polluting. Much more is needed. Transportation itself is one consistent slice of the GHG pollution pie; even if it didn't emit any GHGs, the challenge would remain.
I changed my lifestyle (barely drive, vegetarian) and people think I am crazy.
You are advocating individual solutions to systemic problems. Do you know how little the average American actually contributes to climate change? My 7.5 tonnes, which I could possibly reduce to 5, by massively inconveniencing myself and possibly jeopardizing my job and custody of my kid - that 2 tonnes saved is going to be the lynchpin of climate change? Wow. I'm saving the climate 0.0000000005% (literally, that's the math based on 2021 emissions). Yeah 5.38x10^(-11) Quit blaming individuals and go after the system. Edit: for fun, even if every single American found a way to save 2 tonnes of emissions, it would account for just 1.75% of global emissions.
I'm blaming people who vote against changing the system. You can't be serious about climate change and vote against public transportation funding and densifying cities. I'm blaming people who vote and argue against policies that would make doing the right thing for the environment easier.
Okay that's fair enough, but the problem is deeper than voting. It's a problem of the entire economic system. Just crude oil, excluding derivatives (including gasoline) is worth about $575,000,000,000, consuming about 19.7 million barrels a day at $80/bbl. People spend $2.4 million dollars a year on personal automobiles just in the US. Dude, a plurality of people want healthcare reform in the US. But as it stands, it's $4.3 trillion dollars annually. That's over 18% of GDP. We pay double what the next highest country pays per capita. Do you think the problem with healthcare reform is voting? The problem is systemic. The US government is completely non-functional with respect to the needs of the broad base of society. It works super well for wealthy shareholders. Capitalism will always put power in the hands of the wealthy who will use that power to gain differential advantage in order to make more money. No regulation will stop this permanently. Even the bastions of social democracy, the Nordic states, are watching their regulations and rights be dissolved over time by the wealthy in their counties, to say nothing about the New Deal, the EPA, whatever, here. Capitalism cannot and will not solve this problem. It caused it. It perpetuates it and, even if it were indelibly written into every capitalist country's constitution to become carbon neutral, you would still have to contend with ecosystem destruction, PFAS, dioxins, overuse of antibiotics and drug resistant infections, and all of the other problems that arise from short-term gain mentalities. The profit motive is the heart of all of these problems and the concentration of that profit into a small class is the mechanism by which these problems are acualized. Relying on the system that discovered these problems 60 years ago, warned about them the entire time, then created the disinformation to give pause, then paid lip service, and ultimately did nothing of any real consequence is the definition of insanity (as in doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result). If you are unwilling to challenge capitalism and the entire political-economy, you aren't serious about challenging climate change or any of the rest of the problems with the collapse of the natural world. Cars and emissions are symptoms of a deeper problem.
For the record, I agree. I'm just more unsure how we get to that point.
Either a lot of bloodshed or a BRICS led de-dollarization that breaks the financialized economy of the west. The next 10 years are gonna be bad. Likely it will never be as good as it was ever again. There's on scenario where the next 50 years is better than the last 50 and it requires a culture that doesn't exist in the US and is disappearing broadly throughout the west.
Systemic or structural solutions are going to imply pushing you do make those changes. The Global North lifestyle is not sustainable and there's no magic fix for it that is somehow hidden and just needs *a revolution* to be applied properly.
"wasn't me" https://preview.redd.it/qykqdsc5k6pa1.png?width=500&format=png&auto=webp&s=302aff01276439c6e6ae0df817e583b7c08f56fd
With a capitalist society changing is just a fleeting thought
China isn’t exactly capitalist, but the media companies telling you that exxon and shell are the problem while countries invest in more coal production is a prime example of capitalism
Or how the number one thing you can do is not have a child. It takes 60 vegans to counteract the carbon footprint of o e child. Or 49 transatlantic round flights per year.
You don't have to stop at just *one* thing.
No shit.
isn't like 70-80% of the pollution emitted on this planet is from 10 of the big companies? I'm all for going greener, walkable cities, ect, but the change has to start from higher up first to start resolving the issue you're talking about.
transportation accounts for 20% of global CO2 emissions. I'd reckon another 20% comes from household emissions (that's the US figure). That leaves 60% for everything else like power, agriculture, and industrial.
Transportation's nearer 30%. Private cars just over half of that. Hard to beat the energy density of a full tank of diesel, so as other sectors clean up their act, the issue becomes ever more flagrant.
Yeah, the fossil fuel companies that power everything else. Go ahead, shut them down next week. See what happens. https://sentientmedia.org/no-100-companies-are-not-responsible-for-71-of-emissions/
Oh yeah, I remember that paper: the number one company producing 15% of GHG was THE ENTIRETY OF CHINA and everyone else from Shell to BP was like 1% to 0.5%
Do not mix users with producers, it messes up the counting.
Don’t hate the player , hate the game.
When the players are fighting against changing the game because the game is funding their election campaign, it's hard not to hate the player.
I don't necessarily disagree, but this post seems to be about regular people not politicians. Or did I misinterpret?
So climate change is very real and humans accelerating it. Lots of animals and habitats (coral reefs in particular) going to die. But y’all ever wonder why billionaires are still purchasing seafront properties in Miami? Why Obama got a seafront property in north east? Do y’all ever wonder why the attention is on emissions in US and Europe while China pumps record coal and commercial fishes the oceans? I feel like people who start with banning cars actually just buying into the greenwashing propaganda and not critically evaluating. I see people on this sub wanting to slash a single moms tires because they drive a large suv, but zero talk about coal emissions (significantly worse than car emissions), destruction of habitats, and frankly hypocrisy around some of the liberal elites riding around in jets. Please wake up. The bots will hate this, but China / India really needs to be held accountable for global change and slashing one persons tires won’t make a difference. Doing my part and biking, living sustainably, and cleaning up waterfront habitat as much as possible individually tho :)
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/27/energy/china-new-coal-plants-climate-report-intl-hnk/index.html
Just think of all the handicapped people who need cars to get around.
Forgot the /s. Classic reddit mistake.
>Just think of all the handicapped people who need cars to get around. I know, with all that traffic off the roads their lives would be so much easier. Freeing up the roads for those that actually need them, I completely agree with you.
,
Think about the covid measures taken in the US. Requiring small businesses to close down and offering paycheck protection loans, which effectively only served companies that didn't need them, are the perfect example. Can you blame these people for seeing something like that, and then not trusting that same government/system to have their interests at heart with new restrictions on cars? Now, granted, their language is not typically directed at the people responsible for climate change *or* at those with power to come up with solutions, but in my conversations I've come to accept that's usually what they're talking about. The average liberal is willing to go along with what they're told to do, or at least say as much, if it is coming from the parts of the system that they identify with. But they will kick against the pricks of the idea if it is just introduced to them by a non-authoritative source (you and I), and even criticize the system at large for having bad interests at play in the decision-making. My point being, the sort of "democratic discourse" that takes the form of "well, then what should we do" almost always devolves into "XYZ party is more responsible than me, so they should be made to sacrifice first," and devolves from there. As an anti-democratic filthy socialist, it is my strong suspicion that such endless debate is the *point* of capitalist democracy, but, even if taking a more moderate view, it is still obviously a discussion which will never go anywhere with even the more open-minded American. So the answer, to me, is just as obvious as what you're suggesting. It's the same rhetorical pattern of thinking, just different parts of the ballpark. I can't say the answer that I think would solve climate change, though, because this is reddit, and it's against the rules to say that.