3 ms·

> Why is it so hard for each one of us to just reduce our intake by, say, just 15% to begin with? Because if you do it and no-one else does then you're hurting

• pavlov 10y ago
  There's a good argument to be made that it's actually the opposite of hurting yourself if you do the things the grandparent listed: "... eating less, not changing cell phones every year, shopping less, driving less." But of course nobody wants to hear that either, it's considered preaching about personal choices.
  • josho 9y ago
    You truly need to have heroic levels of dedication to sustain eating 5% less, keeping your home 5% warmer/cooler, and driving 5% less over the long term. Then at the end of the day it still won't matter because your government chooses to continue burning coal. It's even worse because if enough green minded folk can reduce enough energy use to make a difference then it drives down the cost of energy which makes it cheaper for others to use more. This really is a problem that requires everyone to play a role.
    • pavlov 9y ago
      My point was that doing those things would be good for you personally, regardless of any environmental impact. Most American adults are overweight and should eat 5% less. Driving 5% less simply means that you would avoid one trip out of twenty, maybe by arranging to do something remotely or by taking public transport -- hardly an enormous sacrifice. Driving increases stress levels anyway, so this reduction is also good for your health.
• dvtv75 9y ago
  I must say, this is the first time that I have seen not spending money defined as "hurting yourself."
  • ashark 9y ago
    The perception would be so. If not the money wouldn't be spent in the first place.