5 ms·

I believe climate change poses an existential threat to us right now but I don't see things like this list helping. The best thing for anyone to do is to suppo

by hnhg 7y ago

I believe climate change poses an existential threat to us right now but I don't see things like this list helping. The best thing for anyone to do is to support/organise direct political action to change our actions at a global scale. Personal initiatives can only go so far. We have a limited time left (I apologise for not backing this with a citation but this is a rushed reply) to act, and personal sacrifices here and there won't help. Our carbon emissions are still growing overall and we need to reduce them somehow. Also some of these points aren't entirely correct. Reusing plastic bags will probably have a lower carbon footprint than using cotton (I owe you a citation for this but it's out there). Also, there's a conflation between climate change and plastic pollution throughout - let's be precise in addressing these topics.

sendilkumarn 7y ago
I feel they all add up together. There is a water scarcity not because of less rain but because of plastic wastes form a layer in the earth that prevents water to seep through and increase the ground water level. I definitely agree with reusing plastic stuff, but how many times do we do it. Rather than it is cheap and easily available, how many we throw them daily? How many times can you reuse them? Cotton bags at least are not made by destroying the plant (I think) and they are reusable many times. If they are torn we can stitch them or throw it in the earth they will degrade. Is that the case for Plastic ones. I know politicians and corporations have power. But for some time let us stop pointing things towards them and do what we can do.
- hnhg 7y ago
  I'm not arguing the validity of each point but the ranked priority of what has the biggest effect and what is needed to achieve improvement. I'd ask you to go through each point and calculate the impact at a likely scale of participation. You won't achieve enough in the time needed. Massive political pressure is required (look at how little is being achieved right now, even in Germany where the was a large swing to the Green party). Whether you agree with their methods or not, this is what's driving movements like Extinction Rebellion right now: https://rebellion.earth/the-truth/the-emergency/ https://rebellion.earth/the-truth/the-emergency/ Read through the research they cite and you'll get an understanding of the scale and urgency of the issue.
bryanlarsen 7y ago
The excuses that people and politicians use to avoid action have been addressed. "But China / other countries", "But jobs". William Nordhaus won a Nobel prize in economics with this paper: https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/ https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/ ; https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.15000001 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.15000001
- DFHippie 7y ago
  Seconded. For governments to do anything, individuals need to do at least one seemingly ineffectual thing: vote. But voting is a poor signal. You vote in most cases for representatives and these representatives stand for many things. To improve the signal you need to show this is why you voted, and that you will do it again. By doing the small, seemingly ineffectual things you can do as an individual you are signaling your preferences to people who can do more. And more than this, by doing something, anything, you are in effect voting for the behavior you think is acceptable in your society. You yourself are more likely to do another small thing. Your neighbors will be a little less enthusiastic to be seen doing nothing. People, everyone, is looking for an excuse to pamper their present selves at the cost of other people and their future selves, but few people are so thoughtless and selfish that they will do this in all circumstances. By making this choice a little less comfortable for yourself and others, you shift the ratio: how much burden you and others will take on now versus how much you put off on others. The truth of the matter is that if everyone would just do the little, seemingly ineffectual things we wouldn't need the government to compel us or engineer our incentives. The fix we find ourselves in is the cumulative result of many individuals doing small, seemingly ineffectual things that made things worse.
  - hnhg 7y ago
    To turn your point on its head, I'd say the trick is to come up with a stronger political signal than just voting. Fridays for Future and Extinction Rebellion are examples of such things - I think there's scope for much more across various politicals affiliations and leanings.
Slimbo 7y ago
I disagree. They're both essential and individuals doing nothing and insisting that political/government intervention is the only solution isn't going to get anywhere. Corporations and governments will take notice when individuals change behavior, if you stop buying products that contain lots of single use plastics, companies will stop making them. If you divest our pension and savings from any company with an interest in fossil fuels, they will notice and change. If you half your meat consumption and eliminate beef, it will be noticed and a change will happen. There is massive power in consumer action, particularly for those of us in countries that are really the problem (the rich ones).
- hnhg 7y ago
  It's not the only solution but it's the best one. I'm not abrogating responsibility, but actually saying that if we all put the same effort into cohesive non-partisan political action, we'd get a lot more achieved in a shorter amount of time. I can stop taking flights but what about pressing govts to stop jet fuel tax subsidies, halting airport expansion plans, removing tax incentives for business travel by air and increasing funding for zero/low emission alternatives?
vixen99 7y ago
This graph ('Global carbon dioxide emissions by country' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_th...) shows where 'direct political action to change our actions at a global scale' might be encouraged if you want a significant change. I wouldn't hold your breath.
- hnhg 7y ago
  Well, perhaps two of the biggest political changes to influence these trends are the elections of Trump and Bolsonaro, so perhaps I'm right about the power of politics, just in the wrong direction :)

by hnhg 7y ago

sendilkumarn 7y ago

I feel they all add up together. There is a water scarcity not because of less rain but because of plastic wastes form a layer in the earth that prevents water to seep through and increase the ground water level. I definitely agree with reusing plastic stuff, but how many times do we do it. Rather than it is cheap and easily available, how many we throw them daily? How many times can you reuse them? Cotton bags at least are not made by destroying the plant (I think) and they are reusable many times. If they are torn we can stitch them or throw it in the earth they will degrade. Is that the case for Plastic ones. I know politicians and corporations have power. But for some time let us stop pointing things towards them and do what we can do.

hnhg 7y ago
I'm not arguing the validity of each point but the ranked priority of what has the biggest effect and what is needed to achieve improvement. I'd ask you to go through each point and calculate the impact at a likely scale of participation. You won't achieve enough in the time needed. Massive political pressure is required (look at how little is being achieved right now, even in Germany where the was a large swing to the Green party). Whether you agree with their methods or not, this is what's driving movements like Extinction Rebellion right now: https://rebellion.earth/the-truth/the-emergency/ https://rebellion.earth/the-truth/the-emergency/ Read through the research they cite and you'll get an understanding of the scale and urgency of the issue.

bryanlarsen 7y ago

The excuses that people and politicians use to avoid action have been addressed. "But China / other countries", "But jobs". William Nordhaus won a Nobel prize in economics with this paper: https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/ https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/ ; https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.15000001 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.15000001

DFHippie 7y ago
Seconded. For governments to do anything, individuals need to do at least one seemingly ineffectual thing: vote. But voting is a poor signal. You vote in most cases for representatives and these representatives stand for many things. To improve the signal you need to show this is why you voted, and that you will do it again. By doing the small, seemingly ineffectual things you can do as an individual you are signaling your preferences to people who can do more. And more than this, by doing something, anything, you are in effect voting for the behavior you think is acceptable in your society. You yourself are more likely to do another small thing. Your neighbors will be a little less enthusiastic to be seen doing nothing. People, everyone, is looking for an excuse to pamper their present selves at the cost of other people and their future selves, but few people are so thoughtless and selfish that they will do this in all circumstances. By making this choice a little less comfortable for yourself and others, you shift the ratio: how much burden you and others will take on now versus how much you put off on others. The truth of the matter is that if everyone would just do the little, seemingly ineffectual things we wouldn't need the government to compel us or engineer our incentives. The fix we find ourselves in is the cumulative result of many individuals doing small, seemingly ineffectual things that made things worse.
- hnhg 7y ago
  To turn your point on its head, I'd say the trick is to come up with a stronger political signal than just voting. Fridays for Future and Extinction Rebellion are examples of such things - I think there's scope for much more across various politicals affiliations and leanings.

Slimbo 7y ago

I disagree. They're both essential and individuals doing nothing and insisting that political/government intervention is the only solution isn't going to get anywhere. Corporations and governments will take notice when individuals change behavior, if you stop buying products that contain lots of single use plastics, companies will stop making them. If you divest our pension and savings from any company with an interest in fossil fuels, they will notice and change. If you half your meat consumption and eliminate beef, it will be noticed and a change will happen. There is massive power in consumer action, particularly for those of us in countries that are really the problem (the rich ones).

hnhg 7y ago
It's not the only solution but it's the best one. I'm not abrogating responsibility, but actually saying that if we all put the same effort into cohesive non-partisan political action, we'd get a lot more achieved in a shorter amount of time. I can stop taking flights but what about pressing govts to stop jet fuel tax subsidies, halting airport expansion plans, removing tax incentives for business travel by air and increasing funding for zero/low emission alternatives?

vixen99 7y ago

This graph ('Global carbon dioxide emissions by country' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_th...) shows where 'direct political action to change our actions at a global scale' might be encouraged if you want a significant change. I wouldn't hold your breath.

hnhg 7y ago
Well, perhaps two of the biggest political changes to influence these trends are the elections of Trump and Bolsonaro, so perhaps I'm right about the power of politics, just in the wrong direction :)