6 ms·

Readers: reducing your emissions will make a difference, not just your reduction, but you will lead others, who otherwise might feel alone, to join you. And aft

by spodek 7y ago

Readers: reducing your emissions will make a difference, not just your reduction, but you will lead others, who otherwise might feel alone, to join you. And after reducing small things, you'll find it easier to reduce big things. Eventually large number of people will reduce large amounts of emissions. Corporations, governments, and other institutions will follow. You will make a difference. You will also find after reducing driving, flying, meat, etc, that you'll wish you had changed earlier. You replace those things with other things you like more.

elbasti 7y ago
There is no more time for individual action. We're about 20/30 years too late for this plan. Positive-feedback has kicked in, so slowing down emissions will achieve very little. Because of positive feedback, even halting emissions might not be enough. The only possible path I can think of to stem the catastrophe is a two-step plan: 1. The immediate enactment of a global carbon tax, priced high enough to materially reduce carbon emissions, and quickly. 2. Massive investment in sequestration technologies to help us scrub the air of CO2 and methane. The challenge is colossal. Even if (1) could be done, (2) basically involves un-doing every emission of the past 20 years. Every mile driven must now be driven backwards, every good manufactured must be un-done...and with far more energy than it took the first time (thanks, thermodynamics!). And that energy must come from clean sources. And it must be done quickly; every day the carbon debt accelerates. Note, not grows — accelerates! A friend once gave me the following metaphor. Imagine you have a glass jar, filled 1/16 with bacteria. The bacteria look up and say "we have plenty of room to grow!". Two weeks later the bacteria are half way up the jar. "Hey, it took us two week to get here, we have time to curb our growth". The bacteria suffocate in about two hours.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  Carbon sequestration seems like the (political) winner because it's much easier to convince people to spend money on something than it is to take their money for doing something (in a democratic society at least). Edit: Of course not emitting the carbon is better and more efficient but from a practical "affecting change ASAP" perspective sequestration seems like an easier pill for society to swallow. That should go without saying but I forgot that weekends here are basically Reddit and those kinds of things cannot be considered obvious.
  - elbasti 7y ago
    Unfortunately we need to do both. It's much "cheaper" (in money and thermodynamics) to release carbon than to capture it, so we need to stop pumping it into the atmosphere in order for it to make any sense whatsoever to spend money removing it.
  - hannob 7y ago
    Please learn some basic facts. The idea that carbon sequestation is an alternative to reducing emissions needs to die as quickly as possible. It's rooted in fantasy, not in facts. All climate scenarios from the IPCC that don't end up in a huge catastrophy rely on rapid emission reductions. Most also rely on carbon sequestation for negative emissions in the future (which many think is too optimistic, because it needs yet to be shown that the technology can be scaled up enough). There is no scenario of averting catastrophic heating with carbon sequestation alone.
  - cheerlessbog 7y ago
    > it's much easier to convince people to spend money on something than it is to take their money for doing something If that was the case we could have a strong carbon tax, which would actually be a very good idea, probably the most economically efficient of all. But they don't. People like to keep their money even if that means much less money for them in the long run because we don't have an economy in the sense we are used to.
- jodrellblank 7y ago
  The bacteria are mentioned in Albert Bartlett's famous lecture here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY It's clickbait titled and split into 8 parts, for who knows what reasons, but that quote is the tl;dr version of it. Exponential growth is unintuitive, and chasing endless growth is not going to work out well for us. Even if the bacteria find another entire jar of open space - as much space as has ever been known, as much space as they have used in their entire history - a fully terraformed Mars hanging out in the back yard previously unseen - it only lasts a single doubling-time.
  - elbasti 7y ago
    Found a 3 minute version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73xdpoQFLQk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73xdpoQFLQk
- plufz 7y ago
  So people should stop with individual action while lobbying politicans? On what do you base that? I agree that political solutions are important but can’t see that individual contributions won’t be a part of the solution. I also think that politicans usually want to do what is popular, e.g if people start eating less meat politicians dare to suggest meat taxes. Politics is usually slow, I firmly believe we need to work on all levels to mitigate co2. I’ve heard some criticism against co2 tax, since different areas of society works very differently. For example taxes on gas have not been very successful for decreasing the amount we drive even though taxes on gas in many countries are much higher than suggested tax levels for co2. Another big emitter of co2 is heating and cooling of real estate, but the cost of that is spread over a long time and is usually not payed by the entrepreneurs that build and sell the property and does not to a high degree affect the pricing. So in both of these cases we need other tools than taxes like subsidies for buying electric cars and building standards/regulations.
  - elbasti 7y ago
    > So people should stop with individual action while lobbying politicians? If it helps them lobby their politicians more, then sure. I mean, it doesn't, but if it did I'd take that trade any day. > On what do you base that? Purely on a sense of urgency. Individual action will--at best--lower greenhouse emissions by lowering demand for carbon intensive products & practices. How many business cycles does it take for these actions to take effect? We simply don't have decades. As well, a consequence of lowering demand of carbon-intensive products results in...a lowering of the price of carbon/oil. Increasing demand, until the slack is picked up elsewhere. The invisible hand is powerful. A Co2 tax does the same thing as individual action--it lowers the demand for carbon, except it prevents the price from adjusting down. It is our only hope. > For example taxes on gas have not been very successful for decreasing the amount we drive even though taxes on gas in many countries are much higher than suggested tax levels for co2. By definition, then the tax is too low. Demand for gasoline is very inelastic, but it's not perfectly inelastic. I don't think you understand the urgency. Runaway heating has started. We don't have 20 years. A draconianly high CO2 tax is our only hope.
    - plufz 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
UglyToad 7y ago
I do the things listed, I don't drive, I'm vegetarian, I've stopped flying, I very rarely buy new stuff, I live in a single room but I think it's hopeless. Without fundamental political and societal changes it feels like we're doomed. When big business can buy and amplify speech far more than concerned citizens, democracy won't be able to face/take the action needed.
- jodrellblank 7y ago
  You just need to fit another person in that single room, make more use of the resources to build it and need less to heat it. If the only action is shaming you for existing, because existing increases entropy, then the limit is that it goes to shaming you until you commit suicide. It's much more important to ship 20,000 tons of Spiderman toys over the Pacific ocean for Christmas presents, only to bury them in a dump, because that's profitable. After all - you don't even buy stuff or spend money on flights or fuel, why should you even have a say or a right to exist at all? /s
dpau 7y ago
on top of what others have said, continuing to put the onus on average individuals to stop climate change is not only insulting but also counter-productive. most of us who are educated about the issues are already doing what little we can to help. while the poor are just trying to survive in a more and more unequal world. and none of that has worked. it's time for the rich and powerful to step up, time for governments and corporations to start looking past their narrow self-interest. but apparently that's not going to happen.
- pojzon 7y ago
  This is pretty much my stance too.. Im well educated and informed enough to know that anything individuals would do now is pointless.. I also understand that nothing will be done to fix the problem by powers which are able to make a difference ( because its not "profitable"). Humanity as we know it will perish. Thats why I do everything I can to enjoy the ride. Im also preparing my children, by buying properties in safer places (safer in the next 50 years..).
0xffff2 7y ago
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this is pure 100% Grade A bullshit. Individual action isn't going to detectable move the needle at this point, and claiming otherwise is actively harmful. The only thing that you as an individual can do is lobby your politicians to enact systematic change at the national and global level.
- perfunctory 7y ago
  > The only thing that you as an individual can do is lobby your politicians Do you have any specific tips on how to lobby the politicians?
  - keith_analog 7y ago
    Here's a link to one lobbying org whose mission I believe in. https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
  - graeme 7y ago
    Call, write, donate to those parties proposing carbon taxes, join advocacy groups for the same, form or join an interest group. Join an opinion polling group and give answers.
    - pojzon 7y ago
      What if none of our politicians want to do that and just promote populism giving everybody voting on them money for having more kids ? Promoting consumtion even more and selling out country treasures (land, forests) to pay for loans ? And if you try to create new party to promote "not fitting" slogans, you disappear or have "an accident".. World is a shithole now. Only way is to run away from all of this but not everyone has such possibility and there is not many places to run to.
- WaltPurvis 7y ago
  I don't believe lobbying as an individual is effective either. We need to participate in combined lobbying efforts to maybe exert an influence a fraction as strong as the thinly veiled (and occasionally outright) bribery committed by giant corporations and sociopathic billionaires.
jodrellblank 7y ago
Eventually large number of people will reduce large amounts of emissions. Corporations, governments, and other institutions will follow. I don't believe it. I don't believe cruise ship operators or aluminium smelting companies will change anything based on whether a New York or Sydney person drives less often and nitpicks about plastic food packaging. They need regulating, hard, and that means a worse economy and unhappier people with lower quality of life paying more for goods "for their own good", and that means it won't happen. I feel it unfair that I should lead the charge to hermit-life eating leafy gruel and nitpicking over plastic lids while my brother flies halfway round the world on international holidays - and he does that because he's annoyed that he should have to care about climate emissions from an occasional holiday while business people fly over the pond for a half-day meeting and while cruise ships exist. This is the kind of personal feeling the anti-climate-change movement has to address to get people on board, and chastising people "it'll be a catastrophe" isn't enough. I know it feels like it should be enough, but it isn't enough. not just your reduction, but you will lead others, who otherwise might feel alone, to join you. Only if I tell them, which I won't. The sort of people who self-promote are driving the bad things of the world - envy, aspirational Instagram lifestyles, consumerism. And the people who tell people "I'm vegan" are the butt of jokes and the hated holier-than-thou preachy people. The people who actually will reduce their emissions will just quietly do that, like they just quietly check up on an elderly neighbour without making a fuss about how great they are for doing so. Self-sacrifice for the greater good isn't catching like shopping and showing off is. You will also find after reducing driving, flying, meat, etc, that you'll wish you had changed earlier. You replace those things with other things you like more. That doesn't follow. My alternatives to driving are worse than driving, otherwise I wouldn't drive right now. And I like cake more than meat - but I don't want to replace meat with cake, thanks, that would be a bad trade.
perfunctory 7y ago
Very disappointed to see so much negativity in the replies. Just wanted to add two things. Richest 10% are responsible for half of global carbon emissions [0]. I would guess many HN readers belong to top 10%. So what we do matters. Another good news, apparently takes only 3.5% of the population to take an active stance on something to cause a change [1] So, don't despair. If you are already started reducing your consumption - it matters. If you haven't - it's never late to start, especially if you are rich (relatively). And of course individual action is not mutually exclusive with lobbying politicians. [0] https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-ex... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=YJSehRlU34w https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=YJSehRlU34w
- elbasti 7y ago
  > it's never late to start, especially if you are rich (relatively). It is. It's too late to start. In the immortal words of Magnus Carlsen, Too weak, too slow.
- ageofwant 7y ago
  The only reason you don't despair is because you do not truly believe what the future holds. At a fundamental level you believe this is all bullshit. And with you, I of course mean us, us generally. We have various religious groups committing terrorist acts on those they believe to be their enemies. I see no evidence that the same level of 'faith' being present in any significant segment of the population. I cannot express it more eloquently than this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tcw-9UBFNWE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tcw-9UBFNWE
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Did you really mean to link to "Milkweed Pollination for the Lewd & Crude"? I can't say I understand the connection.
- jellicle 7y ago
  > If you are already started reducing your consumption - it matters. It sure doesn't. One person's consumption, no matter how extravagant, doesn't matter even the tiniest tiniest bit. The only solution is massive, concerted, governmental action.
WaltPurvis 7y ago
>Readers: reducing your emissions will make a difference, not just your reduction, but you will lead others, who otherwise might feel alone, to join you. I'm fairly confident that every individual I personally know would react with a bemused "how quaint" if I started riding a bicycle or eating vegan or whatever as a way of fighting climate change. I'm sorry, but I just don't foresee a massive number of people changing their lifestyles voluntarily.
- foobiekr 7y ago
  One real problem with the whole "go vegan" thing is that it will just be used to support additional population. Fundamentally, without managing population, all conservation really accomplishes is allowing the population to get even further out past carrying capacity.
bad-joke 7y ago
Our society is not geared towards sustainability. It rewards overproduction and overconsumption and harshly punishes those who fail to outcompete their neighbors on these terms. Given these constraints, what provides a greater return on your investment of time and energy? Carving out your own sustainable lifestyle within a system geared towards suppressing your efforts, or getting involved in political organizing to change the system?

by spodek 7y ago

elbasti 7y ago

There is no more time for individual action. We're about 20/30 years too late for this plan. Positive-feedback has kicked in, so slowing down emissions will achieve very little. Because of positive feedback, even halting emissions might not be enough. The only possible path I can think of to stem the catastrophe is a two-step plan: 1. The immediate enactment of a global carbon tax, priced high enough to materially reduce carbon emissions, and quickly. 2. Massive investment in sequestration technologies to help us scrub the air of CO2 and methane. The challenge is colossal. Even if (1) could be done, (2) basically involves un-doing every emission of the past 20 years. Every mile driven must now be driven backwards, every good manufactured must be un-done...and with far more energy than it took the first time (thanks, thermodynamics!). And that energy must come from clean sources. And it must be done quickly; every day the carbon debt accelerates. Note, not grows — accelerates! A friend once gave me the following metaphor. Imagine you have a glass jar, filled 1/16 with bacteria. The bacteria look up and say "we have plenty of room to grow!". Two weeks later the bacteria are half way up the jar. "Hey, it took us two week to get here, we have time to curb our growth". The bacteria suffocate in about two hours.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
Carbon sequestration seems like the (political) winner because it's much easier to convince people to spend money on something than it is to take their money for doing something (in a democratic society at least). Edit: Of course not emitting the carbon is better and more efficient but from a practical "affecting change ASAP" perspective sequestration seems like an easier pill for society to swallow. That should go without saying but I forgot that weekends here are basically Reddit and those kinds of things cannot be considered obvious.
- elbasti 7y ago
  Unfortunately we need to do both. It's much "cheaper" (in money and thermodynamics) to release carbon than to capture it, so we need to stop pumping it into the atmosphere in order for it to make any sense whatsoever to spend money removing it.
- hannob 7y ago
  Please learn some basic facts. The idea that carbon sequestation is an alternative to reducing emissions needs to die as quickly as possible. It's rooted in fantasy, not in facts. All climate scenarios from the IPCC that don't end up in a huge catastrophy rely on rapid emission reductions. Most also rely on carbon sequestation for negative emissions in the future (which many think is too optimistic, because it needs yet to be shown that the technology can be scaled up enough). There is no scenario of averting catastrophic heating with carbon sequestation alone.
- cheerlessbog 7y ago
  > it's much easier to convince people to spend money on something than it is to take their money for doing something If that was the case we could have a strong carbon tax, which would actually be a very good idea, probably the most economically efficient of all. But they don't. People like to keep their money even if that means much less money for them in the long run because we don't have an economy in the sense we are used to.
jodrellblank 7y ago
The bacteria are mentioned in Albert Bartlett's famous lecture here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY It's clickbait titled and split into 8 parts, for who knows what reasons, but that quote is the tl;dr version of it. Exponential growth is unintuitive, and chasing endless growth is not going to work out well for us. Even if the bacteria find another entire jar of open space - as much space as has ever been known, as much space as they have used in their entire history - a fully terraformed Mars hanging out in the back yard previously unseen - it only lasts a single doubling-time.
- elbasti 7y ago
  Found a 3 minute version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73xdpoQFLQk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73xdpoQFLQk
plufz 7y ago
So people should stop with individual action while lobbying politicans? On what do you base that? I agree that political solutions are important but can’t see that individual contributions won’t be a part of the solution. I also think that politicans usually want to do what is popular, e.g if people start eating less meat politicians dare to suggest meat taxes. Politics is usually slow, I firmly believe we need to work on all levels to mitigate co2. I’ve heard some criticism against co2 tax, since different areas of society works very differently. For example taxes on gas have not been very successful for decreasing the amount we drive even though taxes on gas in many countries are much higher than suggested tax levels for co2. Another big emitter of co2 is heating and cooling of real estate, but the cost of that is spread over a long time and is usually not payed by the entrepreneurs that build and sell the property and does not to a high degree affect the pricing. So in both of these cases we need other tools than taxes like subsidies for buying electric cars and building standards/regulations.
- elbasti 7y ago
  > So people should stop with individual action while lobbying politicians? If it helps them lobby their politicians more, then sure. I mean, it doesn't, but if it did I'd take that trade any day. > On what do you base that? Purely on a sense of urgency. Individual action will--at best--lower greenhouse emissions by lowering demand for carbon intensive products & practices. How many business cycles does it take for these actions to take effect? We simply don't have decades. As well, a consequence of lowering demand of carbon-intensive products results in...a lowering of the price of carbon/oil. Increasing demand, until the slack is picked up elsewhere. The invisible hand is powerful. A Co2 tax does the same thing as individual action--it lowers the demand for carbon, except it prevents the price from adjusting down. It is our only hope. > For example taxes on gas have not been very successful for decreasing the amount we drive even though taxes on gas in many countries are much higher than suggested tax levels for co2. By definition, then the tax is too low. Demand for gasoline is very inelastic, but it's not perfectly inelastic. I don't think you understand the urgency. Runaway heating has started. We don't have 20 years. A draconianly high CO2 tax is our only hope.
  - plufz 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

UglyToad 7y ago

I do the things listed, I don't drive, I'm vegetarian, I've stopped flying, I very rarely buy new stuff, I live in a single room but I think it's hopeless. Without fundamental political and societal changes it feels like we're doomed. When big business can buy and amplify speech far more than concerned citizens, democracy won't be able to face/take the action needed.

jodrellblank 7y ago
You just need to fit another person in that single room, make more use of the resources to build it and need less to heat it. If the only action is shaming you for existing, because existing increases entropy, then the limit is that it goes to shaming you until you commit suicide. It's much more important to ship 20,000 tons of Spiderman toys over the Pacific ocean for Christmas presents, only to bury them in a dump, because that's profitable. After all - you don't even buy stuff or spend money on flights or fuel, why should you even have a say or a right to exist at all? /s

dpau 7y ago

on top of what others have said, continuing to put the onus on average individuals to stop climate change is not only insulting but also counter-productive. most of us who are educated about the issues are already doing what little we can to help. while the poor are just trying to survive in a more and more unequal world. and none of that has worked. it's time for the rich and powerful to step up, time for governments and corporations to start looking past their narrow self-interest. but apparently that's not going to happen.

pojzon 7y ago
This is pretty much my stance too.. Im well educated and informed enough to know that anything individuals would do now is pointless.. I also understand that nothing will be done to fix the problem by powers which are able to make a difference ( because its not "profitable"). Humanity as we know it will perish. Thats why I do everything I can to enjoy the ride. Im also preparing my children, by buying properties in safer places (safer in the next 50 years..).

0xffff2 7y ago

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this is pure 100% Grade A bullshit. Individual action isn't going to detectable move the needle at this point, and claiming otherwise is actively harmful. The only thing that you as an individual can do is lobby your politicians to enact systematic change at the national and global level.

perfunctory 7y ago
> The only thing that you as an individual can do is lobby your politicians Do you have any specific tips on how to lobby the politicians?
- keith_analog 7y ago
  Here's a link to one lobbying org whose mission I believe in. https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
- graeme 7y ago
  Call, write, donate to those parties proposing carbon taxes, join advocacy groups for the same, form or join an interest group. Join an opinion polling group and give answers.
  - pojzon 7y ago
    What if none of our politicians want to do that and just promote populism giving everybody voting on them money for having more kids ? Promoting consumtion even more and selling out country treasures (land, forests) to pay for loans ? And if you try to create new party to promote "not fitting" slogans, you disappear or have "an accident".. World is a shithole now. Only way is to run away from all of this but not everyone has such possibility and there is not many places to run to.
WaltPurvis 7y ago
I don't believe lobbying as an individual is effective either. We need to participate in combined lobbying efforts to maybe exert an influence a fraction as strong as the thinly veiled (and occasionally outright) bribery committed by giant corporations and sociopathic billionaires.

jodrellblank 7y ago

Eventually large number of people will reduce large amounts of emissions. Corporations, governments, and other institutions will follow. I don't believe it. I don't believe cruise ship operators or aluminium smelting companies will change anything based on whether a New York or Sydney person drives less often and nitpicks about plastic food packaging. They need regulating, hard, and that means a worse economy and unhappier people with lower quality of life paying more for goods "for their own good", and that means it won't happen. I feel it unfair that I should lead the charge to hermit-life eating leafy gruel and nitpicking over plastic lids while my brother flies halfway round the world on international holidays - and he does that because he's annoyed that he should have to care about climate emissions from an occasional holiday while business people fly over the pond for a half-day meeting and while cruise ships exist. This is the kind of personal feeling the anti-climate-change movement has to address to get people on board, and chastising people "it'll be a catastrophe" isn't enough. I know it feels like it should be enough, but it isn't enough. not just your reduction, but you will lead others, who otherwise might feel alone, to join you. Only if I tell them, which I won't. The sort of people who self-promote are driving the bad things of the world - envy, aspirational Instagram lifestyles, consumerism. And the people who tell people "I'm vegan" are the butt of jokes and the hated holier-than-thou preachy people. The people who actually will reduce their emissions will just quietly do that, like they just quietly check up on an elderly neighbour without making a fuss about how great they are for doing so. Self-sacrifice for the greater good isn't catching like shopping and showing off is. You will also find after reducing driving, flying, meat, etc, that you'll wish you had changed earlier. You replace those things with other things you like more. That doesn't follow. My alternatives to driving are worse than driving, otherwise I wouldn't drive right now. And I like cake more than meat - but I don't want to replace meat with cake, thanks, that would be a bad trade.

perfunctory 7y ago

Very disappointed to see so much negativity in the replies. Just wanted to add two things. Richest 10% are responsible for half of global carbon emissions [0]. I would guess many HN readers belong to top 10%. So what we do matters. Another good news, apparently takes only 3.5% of the population to take an active stance on something to cause a change [1] So, don't despair. If you are already started reducing your consumption - it matters. If you haven't - it's never late to start, especially if you are rich (relatively). And of course individual action is not mutually exclusive with lobbying politicians. [0] https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-ex... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=YJSehRlU34w https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=YJSehRlU34w

elbasti 7y ago
> it's never late to start, especially if you are rich (relatively). It is. It's too late to start. In the immortal words of Magnus Carlsen, Too weak, too slow.
ageofwant 7y ago
The only reason you don't despair is because you do not truly believe what the future holds. At a fundamental level you believe this is all bullshit. And with you, I of course mean us, us generally. We have various religious groups committing terrorist acts on those they believe to be their enemies. I see no evidence that the same level of 'faith' being present in any significant segment of the population. I cannot express it more eloquently than this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tcw-9UBFNWE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tcw-9UBFNWE
- icebraining 7y ago
  Did you really mean to link to "Milkweed Pollination for the Lewd & Crude"? I can't say I understand the connection.
jellicle 7y ago
> If you are already started reducing your consumption - it matters. It sure doesn't. One person's consumption, no matter how extravagant, doesn't matter even the tiniest tiniest bit. The only solution is massive, concerted, governmental action.

WaltPurvis 7y ago

>Readers: reducing your emissions will make a difference, not just your reduction, but you will lead others, who otherwise might feel alone, to join you. I'm fairly confident that every individual I personally know would react with a bemused "how quaint" if I started riding a bicycle or eating vegan or whatever as a way of fighting climate change. I'm sorry, but I just don't foresee a massive number of people changing their lifestyles voluntarily.

foobiekr 7y ago
One real problem with the whole "go vegan" thing is that it will just be used to support additional population. Fundamentally, without managing population, all conservation really accomplishes is allowing the population to get even further out past carrying capacity.

bad-joke 7y ago

Our society is not geared towards sustainability. It rewards overproduction and overconsumption and harshly punishes those who fail to outcompete their neighbors on these terms. Given these constraints, what provides a greater return on your investment of time and energy? Carving out your own sustainable lifestyle within a system geared towards suppressing your efforts, or getting involved in political organizing to change the system?