4 ms·

I would say, see the world while you still can. Your individual carbon impact either way makes zero difference, and aviation is responsible for 2% of human carb

I would say, see the world while you still can. Your individual carbon impact either way makes zero difference, and aviation is responsible for 2% of human carbon dioxide emissions. We're either going to solve this problem on a grander scale than everybody riding bikes, or the world you currently have a chance to see is not going to be around much longer in its present form.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
To a certain extent, it's that kind of thinking that got us in to this mess.
- idlewords 8y ago
  I think it's important to be rational about what will or won't have an impact on the global problem. People want to have a sense of personal agency, but pretending that individual choices like reducing travel, turning the thermostat down and not eating meat will have any impact is actually counterproductive, because they create the false impression that measures short of massive retooling of our economy can make a dent in this problem. I'm not saying those are bad choices, or that there are not other ethical arguments for them. But let's be clear-eyed about the drastic level of structural change required to stabilize (let alone reduce, let alone get to net-negative) CO2 emissions. (And anyone who chose to have children is automatically disqualified from talking about individual carbon impacts.)
  - dashundchen 8y ago
    Agreed that individual action is always drowned out by society and global policy, even if global emissions are caused by summing up billions individual decisions. Ultimately my problem is it is hypocritical to have concern for climate change while jetting around the world. Eventually I would like to get into green and cleantech and hopefully contribute to a bigger impact on emissions than a single lifetimes worth of actions ever could.
    - idlewords 8y ago
      If you're looking for a good role model, I would point to John Baez, a wonderfully gifted mathematician who has changed course mid-career because he thinks this is the most important problem facing humanity: https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/about/ https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/about/
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    It's certainly true that any individual's actions and choices are unlikely to make a significant change, but if we are willing to justify not making individual sacrifices based on that then we're already in the wrong frame of mind to make progress towards a solution.
- TheGRS 8y ago
  The main reason I would disagree with such a personally limiting view of the world is that the world is so complex and ever-shifting that this sacrifice (even if you convinced a significant amount of people to join) ultimately cannot be measured in its impact. There are other things limiting travel is affecting, such as reducing the amount of income to the countries travelled to that otherwise really need it. But I can't really measure that to any significant degree either.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

To a certain extent, it's that kind of thinking that got us in to this mess.

idlewords 8y ago
I think it's important to be rational about what will or won't have an impact on the global problem. People want to have a sense of personal agency, but pretending that individual choices like reducing travel, turning the thermostat down and not eating meat will have any impact is actually counterproductive, because they create the false impression that measures short of massive retooling of our economy can make a dent in this problem. I'm not saying those are bad choices, or that there are not other ethical arguments for them. But let's be clear-eyed about the drastic level of structural change required to stabilize (let alone reduce, let alone get to net-negative) CO2 emissions. (And anyone who chose to have children is automatically disqualified from talking about individual carbon impacts.)
- dashundchen 8y ago
  Agreed that individual action is always drowned out by society and global policy, even if global emissions are caused by summing up billions individual decisions. Ultimately my problem is it is hypocritical to have concern for climate change while jetting around the world. Eventually I would like to get into green and cleantech and hopefully contribute to a bigger impact on emissions than a single lifetimes worth of actions ever could.
  - idlewords 8y ago
    If you're looking for a good role model, I would point to John Baez, a wonderfully gifted mathematician who has changed course mid-career because he thinks this is the most important problem facing humanity: https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/about/ https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/about/
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  It's certainly true that any individual's actions and choices are unlikely to make a significant change, but if we are willing to justify not making individual sacrifices based on that then we're already in the wrong frame of mind to make progress towards a solution.
TheGRS 8y ago
The main reason I would disagree with such a personally limiting view of the world is that the world is so complex and ever-shifting that this sacrifice (even if you convinced a significant amount of people to join) ultimately cannot be measured in its impact. There are other things limiting travel is affecting, such as reducing the amount of income to the countries travelled to that otherwise really need it. But I can't really measure that to any significant degree either.