19 ms·

If this doesn't scare you I don't know what will. We have to do something about it. By 'we' I mean you and I. As someone said - if you don't think you can chang

If this doesn't scare you I don't know what will. We have to do something about it. By 'we' I mean you and I. As someone said - if you don't think you can change the world you will just be one of the ones who didn't. We need fundamental cultural and policy change. The question is how to achieve it. Despite popular believe I don't think voting matters. Think about any significant societal change in the last century or so. Women suffrage, civil rights movement, anti-war movement, gay rights. None of these were initiated by the parliament. They all started as a popular rebellion and direct action. So what are we to do. - Change your lifestyle. Less flying, driving, meat. - Divest fossil - Get out of the techno bubble and get your hands dirty with direct action and civil disobedience. e.g. [1] [1] https://rebellion.earth/ https://rebellion.earth/

frostburg 7y ago
Isn't it realistically way too late for (ideologically appealing, I understand) lifestyle changes to solve anything? De-growth won't save you from heatwaves or rising sea levels. Mitigation at this point would probably involve extensive dam systems, nuclear reactors and at worst gambling with geoengineering.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Both are required.
  - frostburg 7y ago
    It's hard to build the dams, reactors, geodesic domes and whatever else without more mining, concrete plants, energy intensive logistics and transports, etc. It doesn't seem possible to do both things without failing at both with terrible consequences.
    - esotericn 7y ago
      Far less of that would be required if we used less energy, and it's additive. Eating beefburgers, flying Australia <-> Europe for holidays, driving a Hummer, using plastic for everything, and so on and so forth, just isn't necessary. My street has twice the number of cars it did when I was younger. The idea that "terrible consequences" will come about from people taking the piss a bit less is really very silly. It makes me think of the Four Yorkshiremen sketch but inverted (when I were young, we had all the things...)
    - adrianN 7y ago
      Adding insulation to your home, riding your bike for short trips, not taking that vacation across the ocean, and eating less beef doesn't stop you from building infrastructure to mitigate the effects of the climate catastrophe.
- dsq 7y ago
  Those nations possessing a sufficient pool of well trained nuclear engineering talent will be those most likely to survive the coming climatic and geopolitical extremes.
- kaybe 7y ago
  We can always get more and longer heatwaves and higher sea levels. It might be more than normal now, but if we don't stop it's only going to get worse. If we stop now and find a way to get the carbon out of the atmosphere fast enough we might even have a chance to go back to the old normal, but we have to act fast. Please help to push for it!
meerita 7y ago
Why less meat?
- rebuilder 7y ago
  Meat production is generally much more resource-intensive than vegetarian protein sources.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Farming is a significant contributor to energy use and emissions. Meat is significantly less efficient to produce than a balanced vegetarian diet.
  - Svip 7y ago
    But doesn't a vegetarian diet require more hectares than a meat based one? Livestock farming will emit more emissions per hectare, but I don't think we have enough hectares of arable land to feed 7.7 billion people with vegetarian diets alone. Particularly organic vegetarian diets need a lot of land.
    - esotericn 7y ago
      Total emissions per unit of nutrition is the relevant factor. The only way that meat could win on either metric is if livestock are able to subsist on a diet far less varied than humans; essentially if they are better able to convert lower quality feedstock into higher quality meat.
      - Svip 7y ago
        Are you saying livestock does not live on a diet less varied than humans? As I understand it, they aren't as picky about food as humans are.
        esotericn 7y ago
        "Picky" is a strange way to put it. Our baseline should be what is required for a healthy body and brain. We can go up from there. Going down from the current level is farcical. We're in a crisis. I like me an avocado as much as the next person, but if they need a 500% tax (invented, I don't actually know) to incorporate externalities, they need it. End of. Like, seriously. It doesn't matter what we "want" at this point. Carbon needs pricing or we are totally fucked.
techtonics 7y ago
Another way to help is to slowly cut out fast fashion brands. The amount of waste that is produced from stores such as HM and Zara has heavily impacted our environment.
- Korimo 7y ago
  What would be the alternative? Do smaller franchises/no-name stores have a smaller carbon footprint?
  - munmaek 7y ago
    The alternative is consuming less and moving away from such a consumer-heavy culture. Not merely eliminating the current big players.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    it's not about the size of the company/store. they sell clothes that won't really last more than a season or two (and will be "out of fashion" by then anyway), so people buy a new set of $10 clothes every season. the solution is to buy higher quality clothes, but less often.
  - war1025 7y ago
    I believe the point of "fast fashion" is that you buy new clothes more or less continuously to stay "trendy", rather than buying clothes and wearing them for several years until they're worn out.
trilila 7y ago
I don't think the solution is less flying and less driving, as we obviously can't take a step back in our mobility. This kind of "solutions" is what puts people off. The solution is more green tech and more green power production. And driving those can be done by buying more of those products, and boycotting any products that generate pollution.
- Johnny555 7y ago
  we obviously can't take a step back in our mobility. Why not?
  - HunOL 7y ago
    Any "solution" that does not take into account human nature is not a solution.
    - Johnny555 7y ago
      Society already has many conventions and laws that regulate human nature -- why is transportation off limits?
      - westiseast 7y ago
        I think that’s the point - simply asking people to fly less and drive less and eat les meat will never ever ever work. We need big carrots and big sticks in order to achieve things like less flying - that means government regulation, huge material incentives for not flying/driving/etc.
        the_seraphim 7y ago
        somebody should tell the UK government... if they could only fix the trains and drop the prices, we could easily meet our carbon targets
        lm28469 7y ago
        I'm sure when half of africa and south america will migrate north to avoid dying the carrot will be big enough. But it'll be too little too late.
HunOL 7y ago
I don't think that such ideologically fueled comments should be part of HN.
- yladiz 7y ago
  Why?
- oblio 7y ago
  Why not? Arguing against climate change at this point is almost like arguing that the Earth is flat.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- pmlnr 7y ago
  This is not simply ideology; we do need to change.
mytailorisrich 7y ago
Flying has been seized upon by various groups because it is an easy target and can also be blamed on this awful thing called capitalism (gasp!). But the reality is that there many, many things to do that are more effective before even starting to look at aviation. I don't understand the point of calling for "civil disobedience" (which is usually an euphemism for blocking roads and airports, and alienating public opinion in the process). What does it achieve? If you want to use your individual power do it constructively by changing your everyday routine and behaviour.
- Bombthecat 7y ago
  But, at the end, it doesn't reduce quality of live if you stop visiting Thailand. You could go somewhere "closer". It is not as hard as: just stop driving with your car to work! Hmmkay?!
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    Maybe it does not reduce quality of life, but this is a moot point. The issue is that it focuses on something that is not a priority and it is so largely on ideologically grounds. Your second sentence is actually highlighting a real aspect of the issue: Many people prefer to do something easy rather than something effective.
- adrianN 7y ago
  A transatlantic flight produces about as much carbon dioxide as a typical European produces in a year. Not flying is a very effective thing you can do personally. Globally flying is not that important because almost nobody can afford it.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    > A transatlantic flight produces about as much carbon dioxide as a typical European produces in a year Yes, that's the usual 'argument' except that this does not even seem to be true (return flight from London to New York seems to emit about 1t per passenger when a typical Brit otherwise contributes 7+t, so that's 1/14th of personal annual emissions per flight). In any case, not everyone flies over the Atlantic every year, so that overall and in the grand scheme of things aviation should not be held as a priority. Focusing on aviation is a distraction.
pi-squared 7y ago
Anytime someone tells me to do less flying, driving or eating fcking meat, I link to [1] and say: STOP FCKING - or at least stop having children. The most actionable item (that is of course MUCH harder than not eating meat) is doing something to to convince the nations with most children per woman [2] to have less. But this is not easy - joining organizations that would educate women and doing volunteering or even dangerous work is insanely hard. Not buying meat, recycling and not riding your car seems hard for western people and so you FEEL like you are doing something, but you are not. I will not have children but do 50 transatlantic flights this year, eat all the meat, hell, I'll even teach myself to drive a car just to show off how useless these individual actions are. You can't convince the world, stop CHANGING the world and change yourself, seek data and find the most actionable item. Jeez! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_action_on_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_action_on_climate_c... [2] http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-rate/ http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-r...
- trymas 7y ago
  Why can't we have both? Why can't we live more sustainably and work on reducing global human population?
- _Microft 7y ago
  You don't convince nations. Educating women, female employment and reduced child mortality make the fertility rate drop precipitously as a result. It's still an ongoing process but peak population growth rate was over 50 years ago. See https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth .
- postsantum 7y ago
  I agree on uselessness of individual actions but barring a couple of countries that don't follow the trend of declining number of children as they get richer, it wouldn't work. An entire family from Chad has less carbon footprint than one american teenager
- 7952 7y ago
  But I want to feel like I am a good person. That's the reason I don't shop lift or beat up strangers in the street. It won't have any effect on national crime rates, but that is not the point. My individual actions matter to me. I am just a tiny cog in a vast machine. I think you are just signalling a different kind of virtue. You are scientific, sceptical and ever so smart. But you are not saving the world either.
mnm1 7y ago
How about we regulate corporate emissions[1]? That could actually have an effect that slows down climate change. Individual actions are almost irrelevant by comparison other than making people feel smug and good while the planet is going to hell. Sure, if you want to do any of the above things, go ahead, but let's not pretend like it's going to make a difference. Getting the top polluters to cut down or stop polluting on the other hand will make a difference and the only way of doing that is to regulate them. Unfortunately that requires voting as ineffective as voting is (extremely ineffective). Otherwise what? Should we overthrow our governments with violence or other such drastic solutions that are unlikely to work (there's a reason revolutions are called revolutions: things end up in the same place: one full revolution). In the meantime, I'm going to fly as much as I can and eat as much meat as I can (after being a vegetarian for well over a decade) as it doesn't fucking matter. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...
godzillabrennus 7y ago
We could also realize that short of the mass murder of countless souls typically required to institute radical cultural changes we could build systems to suck the carbon out of the atmosphere while we reduce dependence on fossil fuels. https://www.sciencealert.com/a-canadian-start-up-is-removing-co2-from-the-air-and-turning-it-into-pellets https://www.sciencealert.com/a-canadian-start-up-is-removing...
pmlnr 7y ago
- buy things with less or no packaging - get locally sourced food - get less things; waste less; buy less Packaging and cargo are the two big problems, one for the plastic pollution, the other for the co2 emission. It's not meat consumption. Cutting personal driving/travel is also good but more for environmental well being - eg less noise. It will not make any big changes in the longer run. Downsizing and less stuff will.
- uxcolumbo 7y ago
  Do you have any sources for this? According to a 5 year Oxford University study, the single best thing we can do at an individual level to decbarbonise is to say no to dairy and meat.
dimitar 7y ago
A carbon tax will definitely mean less driving, flying, AC and meat. And this tax can make it possible to give out vouchers so vulnerable people who cannot afford AC will not die in heat waves. So public policy can both incentivise everyone, not only activists to make the right choices. And it can save a lot of lives. If a suitably large group of people refuse to vote for politicians that don't support a carbon tax, cap-and-trade and other climate policies, it will lead to better outcomes.
- learnstats2 7y ago
  it will additionally incentivise AC manufacturers to find more carbon-efficient ways of cooling.
  - smileysteve 7y ago
    If my electricity is nuclear, hydro, or wind then what Carbon is my ac inefficient at?
    - Scoundreller 7y ago
      If your grid is connected to other grids, reducing your electric consumption will offset other carbon consumption.
  - coredog64 7y ago
    AC is more efficient than heating since it is just moving energy around. And yet I don’t see wailing and gnashing of teeth about heating when it is frequently accomplished by burning oil in an on-site boiler. I get the sense that it comes down to places that use AC to make the 3 horrible months of summer livable vote the “wrong” way, while places that burn oil to make the 3 horrible months of winter livable vote the “right” way.
    - learnstats2 7y ago
      AC is more efficient than heating since it is just moving energy around. This claim is incompatible the Second Law of Thermodynamics: "Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time."
misja 7y ago
All these suggestions are just temporary solutions at best, as long as the root cause is still in place: overpopulation. Perhaps at this point in time we could just make things work by cutting back our lifestyles: but 20 or 30 years later the grown population would again need more food and more natural resources. And hungry people don't care about changing the world but about getting food for today, sustainable or not.
- want2know 7y ago
  Your comment is absolutely unhelpful. What is your point? Should we kill everybody over 70 years old? Because: there is no overpopulation, and if there was it is not caused by too many babies but by people living longer. When it comes to CO2 by agriculture: we are eating way too much (meat).
  - misja 7y ago
    Why is it unhelpful to point out the fact that we're overlooking the root cause of the current problems? Of course I would love to have provided the solution for world's overpopulation as well but I admit that I don't have it. Yet, somebody else here might. In my opinion you're putting the bar way too high if you require anybody on this forum to only reply to a discussion when he/she not only can point out a failure in the arguments but has the correct solution as well. Finally, you are putting some rather dubious solution in my mouth with your comment "What is your point? Should we kill everybody over 70 years old?". Of course I didn't have that solution in mind.
  - e2le 7y ago
    The solution is to sterilise everyone except for those who are given a license to have children.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    There is overpopulation. We just had earth day and looking at a graph about population growth is a very clear hint. It is true that this is nothing we can change, but the source of the problem shouldn't be ignored. Of course we can eat as much meat as we want. It just doesn't scale to 7 billion people. So yes, there is overpopulation, we just cannot do anything about it. But don't dismiss the fact.
Chris2048 7y ago
You say "change the world", but aren't you talking mainly about the US and Europe? Which "anti-war movement" or "parliament" are you talking about otherwise? Will your movements have the same traction in India or China?
- perfunctory 7y ago
  - Historically US and Europe have set the global trends. I believe the change must start here. If we lead the way the rest will follow. - I don't have any (direct) influence on the Chinese government. I am gonna do my part and hope that like-minded people in China will do theirs. - A fair share of Chinese emissions are actually our emissions anyway. Haven't we outsourced our industry to China? What's the US - China trade "imbalance"?
  - Chris2048 7y ago
    Historically, over what timeframe(s)? During colonial times?
    - perfunctory 7y ago
      Not necessarily. Just to take a random example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Contemporary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Contemporary
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
krychu 7y ago
You’re assuming the temperature change is caused by our consumptionism. But in fact the temperature, with us or not, is always fluctuating, and is now supposed to be increasing as we’re still technically coming out of the last ice age. It’s not clear what compounding effect we have on the current situation. Although your action points might help they may also not address the real issue.
- weirdcat 7y ago
  Well, here's how the current temperature uptick looks compared to historical fluctuations: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
  - krychu 7y ago
    If you remove dotted predictions from your comic it suggests the temperature increase in the last 2000 years is about 0.3 - 0.4 Celsius degrees (also supported here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png#/media/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature...). This is pretty stable and is not matching past fluctuations, which are more accurately depicted here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature.... Another thing is that we're assuming that the current climate conditions on earth are becoming less optimal, which is unsupported. The current climate might actually be better. There are many examples, both negative but also positive, of the climate change.
    - kaybe 7y ago
      It might be better, true (apart from the thermal limit thing in the article, that's a hard limit). But our civilization is set up for the climate of the last few hundreds of years, reflected in our distribution of cities and infrastructure. If you were to change the sea level either way many cities would either be submerged or far from the sea they were close to since it's useful. If the precipitation patterns change the arable land distribution and ground/runoff water availability will change, the soils and landscapes are not adapted to that yet. Animal and plant behaviour will be different, but in many areas humans are dependent on them. Further out, if any of the atmospheric or ocean circulations change to a different pattern, it will change the local climates as well, with all and more of the above effects. To live in a fast-changing world is hard in itself too, it is unclear what to expect for the near and mid-future, making agricultural and infrastructure planning very hard. So even if the end-state was preferable, the transition will be very painful, for us and the natural world.
grecht 7y ago
While I agree that something has to change, I don‘t agree with what you propose. The demands of climate activists in Europe are mostly completely unrealistic and would mean drastic life style changes for people with smaller incomes, while others would just pay the premium. What a country like Germany, with comparably high emissions per capita but all in all irrelevant contributions to worldwide emissions, needs to show is that it‘s possible to push climate-friendly politics that work with (and through!) the economy, not against it. Maybe this could lead to a change. 20 years ago, Germany raised taxes on fuel, but that didn’t make anyone drive less. I’m guessing the same would happen with a tax on CO2. So I‘m favoring emissions allowances: Politics dictates a threshold of how much CO2 is permitted and gives out allowances, then the price develops on the market. But it feels like, for those „rebellions“, capitalism is the root of all evil.
- perfunctory 7y ago
  > So I‘m favoring emissions allowances The system already exists, isn't it? The so called "cap and trade" https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en But the cap is too high and the prices are too low. Would you accept it's ok to rebel to force the politicians to lower the cap? But also, wouldn't a lower cap lead to the "drastic life style changes for people" anyway (at least in the short term while the economy adapts)?
  - grecht 7y ago
    > The system already exists Yes, but not for all industries. > Would you accept it‘s ok to rebel to force the politicians to lower the cap? If people rebel for realistic solutions I‘m all for it! > wouldn‘t a lower cap lead to the „drastic life style changes for people“ anyway (at least in the short term while the economy adapts) Yeah, probably! Surely not to the same extent like the carbon tax demanded by climate activists. But the idea is to incentivize companies to find more climate-friendly solutions. Certainly some companies would lose their competitive ability if they depend on high emissions, though.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Not only did it not reduce fuel consumption, the money was also used to fix holes in our social security system and almost nothing was done for the environment. Turned out people are dependent on cars. And they really are, to a degree that cannot be satisfied by public transport. People in Germany advocating an additional tax have either never worked, payed bills, are stupendously rich, just insane or don't have responsibilities towards others. Sorry, there is a limit on how much you can use taxes and that limit is staunchly in the red because of naive promises made in the past. I think the current little pupil rebellion is something very worth supporting. But their demands are naive. Your proposition would be a more efficient mechanism. Currently there is a discussion about giving people a fixed amount of money for the additional costs this tax would cause. What a waste of time...
bryanlarsen 7y ago
"Despite popular believe I don't think voting matters. " In the end, voting is the only thing that matters. Individual choices by a small minority of the population are going to be completely ineffectual without government setting policy so that doing the right thing is also doing the most profitable thing. But despite you being wrong in your core point in my opinion, you're absolutely right about the method. (change your lifestyle, divest fossil, direct action, civil disobedience) The reason that voting is useless is because voters don't care about the environment. Climate change is #11 in the list of top priorities for voters.[1]. Fix that, and then voting might make a difference. And you do that by making it clearly visible that it's important to you, and by convincing others that it's important to them. 1: https://news.gallup.com/poll/244367/top-issues-voters-health.. https://news.gallup.com/poll/244367/top-issues-voters-health....
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- perfunctory 7y ago
  Thanks. "In the end" is a useful nuance. My "voting doesn't matter" was a bit of a hyperbole.
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    Glad to hear it. Nihilism is rampant in these conversations and must be stomped on hard. Far too many believe that "extremely difficult" is the same as "impossible" so we should give up and do nothing. It was clear from the rest of your comment that you aren't one of those, but I fear they would find support in your comment. Confirmation bias would lead them to emphasize the "voting doesn't matter" part and ignore your call to action. [edit]: Rereading your comment, you're much more clear than I originally thought about all change being grass roots. Did you edit? If not it really emphasizes this point. I read "voting doesn't matter", hitting one of my hot buttons leading me to misread your comment. We're obviously in fairly close agreement, yet my response was to spout off an angry denunciation...
    - 7y ago
UglyToad 7y ago
While I agree with you overall I've been sliding more and more into fear and despondency. We need to put our countries on a 'war footing'. We have so many people who could be working to fix these problems stuck in offices doing stuff that there isn't really a need for (i.e. most all software development) because that's what the 'market' rewards. We need to completely overhaul what we think of as value and how we reward it. I don't see how that's possible under the current capitalist system and I don't see the majority of people supporting alternative systems. Imagine if we deployed the people power and innovation that currently gets wasted in competition between rival social media applications and redirected it to doing something about climate change. It's not possible for individuals to make that change however because at the end of the day they need to pay their landlord (who I regard as largely parasitic leeches on productivity) and buy food at the shops; and the roles that would allow them to contribute to this don't exist in the number, or at the wages, required. The cost of moving to zero emissions here in the UK was estimated as being £1 trillion so it was kind of kicked down the road to maybe slightly after 2050. Which is just mad. Sure China and India might be bigger emitters but someone has to make the first move. The innovations can then be shared for free with those countries, we can spend money to help them transition. This is our long term survival, we need to be less squeamish about taking what we need from "private property" (read tax havens, the stock market, etc). But clearly these changes aren't achievable at the speed and scale needed solely through voting. Democracies tend to limit themselves to a small range of acceptable views around a midpoint and take a long time to change even if there is a moral imperative, like the previous changes you mention; so I don't see how they can react at the speed necessary to fix this. In addition addressing climate change without addressing social justice won't work. As the article mentions the people most affected by this are going to overwhelmingly be poor and in less-developed countries. They're going to need to come somewhere when their regions become uninhabitable and while it's possible our response is to erect barriers (see Europe, US, etc) or build prison camps from a moral standpoint it can't be.
- perfunctory 7y ago
  > While I agree with you overall I've been sliding more and more into fear and despondency. I've gone through that stage too. Then I came out and decided I'm gonna do what I can, however little the impact might be. I am not hopeful or optimistic. I don't expect to succeed or fail. I am just gonna work on it.
Chris_Chambers 7y ago
People can't survive in Siberia either. Should we "do" something about that too? Stop shilling on behalf of carbon credit scam artists or whatever dirty money NGO monstrosity is hiding behind that link. I won't be clicking it because I don't want brain cancer.
Proven 7y ago
I bet this guy produces at least twice as much CO2 as I do. All Al Gorean hypocrites, please leave us alone.
dubya 7y ago
"Despite popular believe I don't think voting matters. " In the US, if you could just get more registered voters in Texas to actually vote it would completely flip the balance of power between the Dems and Republicans. The issue, supposedly, is that Texas has a "disproportionate number of young, poor, and uneducated citizens." This means that the (actually quite popular) idea that voting doesn't matter mostly benefits the party that has adopted ignorance as most of its platform.
sdegutis 7y ago
We need a moral change more than anything else. Otherwise nobody will be motivated enough. Not all the information in the world will convince someone who doesn't care. I used to be a bit baffled how people could say "fake news" at obvious facts and data and science. Then I read something Fulton Sheen said: never think too much about what someone says, but why they say it. He made this point about atheists, saying that they only choose not to believe in God so they can continue living an evil life. The same can be said of people who deny climate change and the seriousness of the matter, or any clear and demonstrable truth really.
CalRobert 7y ago
Also, run for office.
mariushn 7y ago
I've lost hope. The 3 big issues that I think prevents us solving it are 1. Tragedy of the commons When a country/company wants to make money by damaging the environment in the process, the money come to the country/company now, but the damage is spread world-wide. If the pollution would stay only in that country/city, it would be different. So, the choice is natural, especially considering government 4-year terms. 2. We always put ourselves first, rest of the city/country much further, and rest of the world... doesn't matter. What people want, by human nature, is to satisfy their own needs & comfort. Examples: * Why wait for a bus or use an electric bike when one can just drive a 2 tonnes car to move oneself? It's comfortable and cheap. * USA-specific, but spreading to other countries as well: people huge SUV-style cars to transport 1-2 persons, when a small one could do the job as well. * Norway refuses to drill for billions of barrels of oil in Arctic, leaving ‘whole industry surprised and disappointed’. Government made the right choice, but a few (prosperous already) affected by making less money complain: https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/norway-oil-drilling-arctic-ban-labor-party-unions-a8861171.html https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/norway-oil-drillin... * France introduces a diesel tax, to reduce pollution, which affects everybody's health. But, wait, some need to pay a little more? Let's protest! Tax was cancelled: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/11/french-protests-gilets-jaunes-emmanuel-macron-gas-diesel-tax/576196/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/11/french-protes... * The Bełchatów Coal mine & Power station in Poland. Hundreds of people employed there, they are happy with it. Should the plant be closed to stop pollution? What about our jobs? No way! And no, getting only 20% of salary for free (basic income) and having to learn stuff to maybe find a new job in renewables is not acceptable. So, the coal plant goes on, but it's easier to point to China for doing the same (with more plants, of course). 3. Delayed effects of current actions The environment effects of what a one person/community/country does, bad or good, are hard to see in the short term. Only the downsides are clearly visible in the present. So, taking the correct action is quite hard. Unfortunately, I don't see how to overcome these. Would be glad to be proved wrong! FYI, my personal environment footprint is much smaller than the average in EU/USA, but we are too few to make an impact and others won't listen/change.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  > Unfortunately, I don't see how to overcome these. Would be glad to be proved wrong! Here's a solution at the international level: https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/ https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/ At the national level I believe the problem is slightly easier (though still extremely difficult). We generally have effective national institutions, so we "just" have to convince the populace that the pain is worth the gain. It's easier to stomach a little bit of pain for the common good as long as people believe that everybody else is also doing their part.
iuguy 7y ago
1. The oceans are being murdered: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ocean-is-running-out-of-breath-scientists-warn/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ocean-is-runn... 2. Deforestation is destroying the environment: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warmin... 3. 24 billion tons of fertile soil disappears every year: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/26/land-degradation-is-undermining-human-wellbeing-un-report-warns https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/26/land-deg... 4. Large animals are dying out: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/66/10/807/2236134 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/66/10/807/223613... 5. At the other end of the scale, insects are disappearing: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320718313636 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632071... 6. This is because we're in the middle of the 6th major mass extinction event the Earth has experienced, and this is our doing: https://truthout.org/articles/sixth-mass-extinction-ushers-in-record-breaking-wildfires-and-heat/ https://truthout.org/articles/sixth-mass-extinction-ushers-i... 7. And we're polluting the planet so badly, plastics are showing up inside our bodies: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/10/news-plastics-microplastics-human-feces/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/10/news-...
jjtheblunt 7y ago
Advocating civil disobedience seems perilously close to advocating incoherence, when it's coherent actionable efforts that might help, no?
- Barrin92 7y ago
  only if civil disobedience produces fewer results than "coherent actionable efforts". The US has quite a long history of effective civil discontent, the highway revolts and the civil rights movement of course being two examples. To be honest I hear a lot of people talking about actionable efforts all the time, but if they're so actionable, why aren't they happening? Isn't that the definition of the term?
  - jjtheblunt 7y ago
    good points (seriously)
mirimir 7y ago
About voting. It is true that the movements you cite all relied on direct action in building awareness. However, actual changes came from executive and/or legislative action. And arguably none of them would have succeeded if the government had been unreceptive. So I'd say it's lifestyle change, direct action and voting.
nmeofthestate 7y ago
Advocating self-denial (and going on protests) by billions of people is a non-starter and won't solve the problem. It smacks of a pseudo-religious attitude that we have to suffer to solve climate change. Fixes that really work will have to be at the source - the energy generation stage, making existing lifestyles zero carbon. Bear in mind that billions more people have yet to achieve the comfortable high-energy-use lifestyles that we enjoy.
chroma 7y ago
No civilization has ever voluntarily reduced resource consumption. The incentives and coordination issues make it impossible. There is only one way to get what you want: build what is effectively a world government and coerce everyone to reduce their consumption. That includes people in countries such as India, China, and Indonesia. They'll need to be told by rich westerners that they can't do the things that we did to get rich. Good luck with that. A far more practical solution is to innovate our way out of the problem. That means more cost-effective green technologies, geoengineering, and adaptive technologies (such as air conditioning, building underground, heat sinks, etc). Those would allow us to keep growing economically, maintain people's quality of life, and it doesn't fail if China or India continue on their current path.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  World government is not necessary: https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/ https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/
  - chroma 7y ago
    I said, "…build what is effectively a world government and coerce everyone to reduce their consumption." That article says we need to build a global organization that can coerce everyone reduce their carbon emissions. I don't see how my statement was incorrect.
    - bryanlarsen 7y ago
      I guess you can see "join the club or pay massive import tariffs" as coercion, but it's less of a world government than existing free trade agreements with their dispute handling mechanisms are.
- julbaxter 7y ago
  "Maintaining people's quality of life" is already a denial of reality. And "China or India will continue on their current path" as long as our air conditioning, computers, and other objects will be built over there.
redleggedfrog 7y ago
You're taking a human centric view here. As misanthropic as it may sound, it's entirely possible that this is just a correction in the tiny fraction of the great span of geologic time we happen to be living in. Similar to how the human body gets a fever to fight off an infection, we have the earth heating up to a level destroys the destructive pathogen - us. I suppose it's possible that we get wise enough to deserve continue on as a species, but at this point I doubt it. I don't see anything in humanity that would lead me to believe it's capable of making the cohesive decisions to remedy the situation. Something else will come along in a few million years and maybe they'll do a better job of it.
KUcxrAVrtI 7y ago
>Women suffrage If voting doesn't matter why would giving women the vote matter?
foobiekr 7y ago
Have fewer children.
tomjen3 7y ago
I don't know why you want scared people -- if you really wanted to solve this, you want become who are as rational as you can get. Scared people are only going to run in panic and will do the first thing that is presented "because something must be done". I also see that you have fallen into the trap of thinking that there is anything you _can_ do personally.

frostburg 7y ago

Isn't it realistically way too late for (ideologically appealing, I understand) lifestyle changes to solve anything? De-growth won't save you from heatwaves or rising sea levels. Mitigation at this point would probably involve extensive dam systems, nuclear reactors and at worst gambling with geoengineering.

esotericn 7y ago
Both are required.
- frostburg 7y ago
  It's hard to build the dams, reactors, geodesic domes and whatever else without more mining, concrete plants, energy intensive logistics and transports, etc. It doesn't seem possible to do both things without failing at both with terrible consequences.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    Far less of that would be required if we used less energy, and it's additive. Eating beefburgers, flying Australia <-> Europe for holidays, driving a Hummer, using plastic for everything, and so on and so forth, just isn't necessary. My street has twice the number of cars it did when I was younger. The idea that "terrible consequences" will come about from people taking the piss a bit less is really very silly. It makes me think of the Four Yorkshiremen sketch but inverted (when I were young, we had all the things...)
  - adrianN 7y ago
    Adding insulation to your home, riding your bike for short trips, not taking that vacation across the ocean, and eating less beef doesn't stop you from building infrastructure to mitigate the effects of the climate catastrophe.
dsq 7y ago
Those nations possessing a sufficient pool of well trained nuclear engineering talent will be those most likely to survive the coming climatic and geopolitical extremes.
kaybe 7y ago
We can always get more and longer heatwaves and higher sea levels. It might be more than normal now, but if we don't stop it's only going to get worse. If we stop now and find a way to get the carbon out of the atmosphere fast enough we might even have a chance to go back to the old normal, but we have to act fast. Please help to push for it!

meerita 7y ago

Why less meat?

rebuilder 7y ago
Meat production is generally much more resource-intensive than vegetarian protein sources.
esotericn 7y ago
Farming is a significant contributor to energy use and emissions. Meat is significantly less efficient to produce than a balanced vegetarian diet.
- Svip 7y ago
  But doesn't a vegetarian diet require more hectares than a meat based one? Livestock farming will emit more emissions per hectare, but I don't think we have enough hectares of arable land to feed 7.7 billion people with vegetarian diets alone. Particularly organic vegetarian diets need a lot of land.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    Total emissions per unit of nutrition is the relevant factor. The only way that meat could win on either metric is if livestock are able to subsist on a diet far less varied than humans; essentially if they are better able to convert lower quality feedstock into higher quality meat.
    - Svip 7y ago
      Are you saying livestock does not live on a diet less varied than humans? As I understand it, they aren't as picky about food as humans are.
      - esotericn 7y ago
        "Picky" is a strange way to put it. Our baseline should be what is required for a healthy body and brain. We can go up from there. Going down from the current level is farcical. We're in a crisis. I like me an avocado as much as the next person, but if they need a 500% tax (invented, I don't actually know) to incorporate externalities, they need it. End of. Like, seriously. It doesn't matter what we "want" at this point. Carbon needs pricing or we are totally fucked.

techtonics 7y ago

Another way to help is to slowly cut out fast fashion brands. The amount of waste that is produced from stores such as HM and Zara has heavily impacted our environment.

Korimo 7y ago
What would be the alternative? Do smaller franchises/no-name stores have a smaller carbon footprint?
- munmaek 7y ago
  The alternative is consuming less and moving away from such a consumer-heavy culture. Not merely eliminating the current big players.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  it's not about the size of the company/store. they sell clothes that won't really last more than a season or two (and will be "out of fashion" by then anyway), so people buy a new set of $10 clothes every season. the solution is to buy higher quality clothes, but less often.
- war1025 7y ago
  I believe the point of "fast fashion" is that you buy new clothes more or less continuously to stay "trendy", rather than buying clothes and wearing them for several years until they're worn out.

trilila 7y ago

I don't think the solution is less flying and less driving, as we obviously can't take a step back in our mobility. This kind of "solutions" is what puts people off. The solution is more green tech and more green power production. And driving those can be done by buying more of those products, and boycotting any products that generate pollution.

Johnny555 7y ago
we obviously can't take a step back in our mobility. Why not?
- HunOL 7y ago
  Any "solution" that does not take into account human nature is not a solution.
  - Johnny555 7y ago
    Society already has many conventions and laws that regulate human nature -- why is transportation off limits?
    - westiseast 7y ago
      I think that’s the point - simply asking people to fly less and drive less and eat les meat will never ever ever work. We need big carrots and big sticks in order to achieve things like less flying - that means government regulation, huge material incentives for not flying/driving/etc.
      - the_seraphim 7y ago
        somebody should tell the UK government... if they could only fix the trains and drop the prices, we could easily meet our carbon targets
      - lm28469 7y ago
        I'm sure when half of africa and south america will migrate north to avoid dying the carrot will be big enough. But it'll be too little too late.

HunOL 7y ago

I don't think that such ideologically fueled comments should be part of HN.

yladiz 7y ago
Why?
oblio 7y ago
Why not? Arguing against climate change at this point is almost like arguing that the Earth is flat.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pmlnr 7y ago
This is not simply ideology; we do need to change.

mytailorisrich 7y ago

Flying has been seized upon by various groups because it is an easy target and can also be blamed on this awful thing called capitalism (gasp!). But the reality is that there many, many things to do that are more effective before even starting to look at aviation. I don't understand the point of calling for "civil disobedience" (which is usually an euphemism for blocking roads and airports, and alienating public opinion in the process). What does it achieve? If you want to use your individual power do it constructively by changing your everyday routine and behaviour.

Bombthecat 7y ago
But, at the end, it doesn't reduce quality of live if you stop visiting Thailand. You could go somewhere "closer". It is not as hard as: just stop driving with your car to work! Hmmkay?!
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  Maybe it does not reduce quality of life, but this is a moot point. The issue is that it focuses on something that is not a priority and it is so largely on ideologically grounds. Your second sentence is actually highlighting a real aspect of the issue: Many people prefer to do something easy rather than something effective.
adrianN 7y ago
A transatlantic flight produces about as much carbon dioxide as a typical European produces in a year. Not flying is a very effective thing you can do personally. Globally flying is not that important because almost nobody can afford it.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  > A transatlantic flight produces about as much carbon dioxide as a typical European produces in a year Yes, that's the usual 'argument' except that this does not even seem to be true (return flight from London to New York seems to emit about 1t per passenger when a typical Brit otherwise contributes 7+t, so that's 1/14th of personal annual emissions per flight). In any case, not everyone flies over the Atlantic every year, so that overall and in the grand scheme of things aviation should not be held as a priority. Focusing on aviation is a distraction.

pi-squared 7y ago

Anytime someone tells me to do less flying, driving or eating fcking meat, I link to [1] and say: STOP FCKING - or at least stop having children. The most actionable item (that is of course MUCH harder than not eating meat) is doing something to to convince the nations with most children per woman [2] to have less. But this is not easy - joining organizations that would educate women and doing volunteering or even dangerous work is insanely hard. Not buying meat, recycling and not riding your car seems hard for western people and so you FEEL like you are doing something, but you are not. I will not have children but do 50 transatlantic flights this year, eat all the meat, hell, I'll even teach myself to drive a car just to show off how useless these individual actions are. You can't convince the world, stop CHANGING the world and change yourself, seek data and find the most actionable item. Jeez! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_action_on_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_action_on_climate_c... [2] http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-rate/ http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-r...

trymas 7y ago
Why can't we have both? Why can't we live more sustainably and work on reducing global human population?
_Microft 7y ago
You don't convince nations. Educating women, female employment and reduced child mortality make the fertility rate drop precipitously as a result. It's still an ongoing process but peak population growth rate was over 50 years ago. See https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth .
postsantum 7y ago
I agree on uselessness of individual actions but barring a couple of countries that don't follow the trend of declining number of children as they get richer, it wouldn't work. An entire family from Chad has less carbon footprint than one american teenager
7952 7y ago
But I want to feel like I am a good person. That's the reason I don't shop lift or beat up strangers in the street. It won't have any effect on national crime rates, but that is not the point. My individual actions matter to me. I am just a tiny cog in a vast machine. I think you are just signalling a different kind of virtue. You are scientific, sceptical and ever so smart. But you are not saving the world either.

mnm1 7y ago

How about we regulate corporate emissions[1]? That could actually have an effect that slows down climate change. Individual actions are almost irrelevant by comparison other than making people feel smug and good while the planet is going to hell. Sure, if you want to do any of the above things, go ahead, but let's not pretend like it's going to make a difference. Getting the top polluters to cut down or stop polluting on the other hand will make a difference and the only way of doing that is to regulate them. Unfortunately that requires voting as ineffective as voting is (extremely ineffective). Otherwise what? Should we overthrow our governments with violence or other such drastic solutions that are unlikely to work (there's a reason revolutions are called revolutions: things end up in the same place: one full revolution). In the meantime, I'm going to fly as much as I can and eat as much meat as I can (after being a vegetarian for well over a decade) as it doesn't fucking matter. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...

godzillabrennus 7y ago

We could also realize that short of the mass murder of countless souls typically required to institute radical cultural changes we could build systems to suck the carbon out of the atmosphere while we reduce dependence on fossil fuels. https://www.sciencealert.com/a-canadian-start-up-is-removing-co2-from-the-air-and-turning-it-into-pellets https://www.sciencealert.com/a-canadian-start-up-is-removing...

pmlnr 7y ago

- buy things with less or no packaging - get locally sourced food - get less things; waste less; buy less Packaging and cargo are the two big problems, one for the plastic pollution, the other for the co2 emission. It's not meat consumption. Cutting personal driving/travel is also good but more for environmental well being - eg less noise. It will not make any big changes in the longer run. Downsizing and less stuff will.

uxcolumbo 7y ago
Do you have any sources for this? According to a 5 year Oxford University study, the single best thing we can do at an individual level to decbarbonise is to say no to dairy and meat.

dimitar 7y ago

A carbon tax will definitely mean less driving, flying, AC and meat. And this tax can make it possible to give out vouchers so vulnerable people who cannot afford AC will not die in heat waves. So public policy can both incentivise everyone, not only activists to make the right choices. And it can save a lot of lives. If a suitably large group of people refuse to vote for politicians that don't support a carbon tax, cap-and-trade and other climate policies, it will lead to better outcomes.

learnstats2 7y ago
it will additionally incentivise AC manufacturers to find more carbon-efficient ways of cooling.
- smileysteve 7y ago
  If my electricity is nuclear, hydro, or wind then what Carbon is my ac inefficient at?
  - Scoundreller 7y ago
    If your grid is connected to other grids, reducing your electric consumption will offset other carbon consumption.
- coredog64 7y ago
  AC is more efficient than heating since it is just moving energy around. And yet I don’t see wailing and gnashing of teeth about heating when it is frequently accomplished by burning oil in an on-site boiler. I get the sense that it comes down to places that use AC to make the 3 horrible months of summer livable vote the “wrong” way, while places that burn oil to make the 3 horrible months of winter livable vote the “right” way.
  - learnstats2 7y ago
    AC is more efficient than heating since it is just moving energy around. This claim is incompatible the Second Law of Thermodynamics: "Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time."

misja 7y ago

All these suggestions are just temporary solutions at best, as long as the root cause is still in place: overpopulation. Perhaps at this point in time we could just make things work by cutting back our lifestyles: but 20 or 30 years later the grown population would again need more food and more natural resources. And hungry people don't care about changing the world but about getting food for today, sustainable or not.

want2know 7y ago
Your comment is absolutely unhelpful. What is your point? Should we kill everybody over 70 years old? Because: there is no overpopulation, and if there was it is not caused by too many babies but by people living longer. When it comes to CO2 by agriculture: we are eating way too much (meat).
- misja 7y ago
  Why is it unhelpful to point out the fact that we're overlooking the root cause of the current problems? Of course I would love to have provided the solution for world's overpopulation as well but I admit that I don't have it. Yet, somebody else here might. In my opinion you're putting the bar way too high if you require anybody on this forum to only reply to a discussion when he/she not only can point out a failure in the arguments but has the correct solution as well. Finally, you are putting some rather dubious solution in my mouth with your comment "What is your point? Should we kill everybody over 70 years old?". Of course I didn't have that solution in mind.
- e2le 7y ago
  The solution is to sterilise everyone except for those who are given a license to have children.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  There is overpopulation. We just had earth day and looking at a graph about population growth is a very clear hint. It is true that this is nothing we can change, but the source of the problem shouldn't be ignored. Of course we can eat as much meat as we want. It just doesn't scale to 7 billion people. So yes, there is overpopulation, we just cannot do anything about it. But don't dismiss the fact.

Chris2048 7y ago

You say "change the world", but aren't you talking mainly about the US and Europe? Which "anti-war movement" or "parliament" are you talking about otherwise? Will your movements have the same traction in India or China?

perfunctory 7y ago
- Historically US and Europe have set the global trends. I believe the change must start here. If we lead the way the rest will follow. - I don't have any (direct) influence on the Chinese government. I am gonna do my part and hope that like-minded people in China will do theirs. - A fair share of Chinese emissions are actually our emissions anyway. Haven't we outsourced our industry to China? What's the US - China trade "imbalance"?
- Chris2048 7y ago
  Historically, over what timeframe(s)? During colonial times?
  - perfunctory 7y ago
    Not necessarily. Just to take a random example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Contemporary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Contemporary
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

krychu 7y ago

You’re assuming the temperature change is caused by our consumptionism. But in fact the temperature, with us or not, is always fluctuating, and is now supposed to be increasing as we’re still technically coming out of the last ice age. It’s not clear what compounding effect we have on the current situation. Although your action points might help they may also not address the real issue.

weirdcat 7y ago
Well, here's how the current temperature uptick looks compared to historical fluctuations: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
- krychu 7y ago
  If you remove dotted predictions from your comic it suggests the temperature increase in the last 2000 years is about 0.3 - 0.4 Celsius degrees (also supported here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png#/media/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature...). This is pretty stable and is not matching past fluctuations, which are more accurately depicted here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature.... Another thing is that we're assuming that the current climate conditions on earth are becoming less optimal, which is unsupported. The current climate might actually be better. There are many examples, both negative but also positive, of the climate change.
  - kaybe 7y ago
    It might be better, true (apart from the thermal limit thing in the article, that's a hard limit). But our civilization is set up for the climate of the last few hundreds of years, reflected in our distribution of cities and infrastructure. If you were to change the sea level either way many cities would either be submerged or far from the sea they were close to since it's useful. If the precipitation patterns change the arable land distribution and ground/runoff water availability will change, the soils and landscapes are not adapted to that yet. Animal and plant behaviour will be different, but in many areas humans are dependent on them. Further out, if any of the atmospheric or ocean circulations change to a different pattern, it will change the local climates as well, with all and more of the above effects. To live in a fast-changing world is hard in itself too, it is unclear what to expect for the near and mid-future, making agricultural and infrastructure planning very hard. So even if the end-state was preferable, the transition will be very painful, for us and the natural world.

grecht 7y ago

While I agree that something has to change, I don‘t agree with what you propose. The demands of climate activists in Europe are mostly completely unrealistic and would mean drastic life style changes for people with smaller incomes, while others would just pay the premium. What a country like Germany, with comparably high emissions per capita but all in all irrelevant contributions to worldwide emissions, needs to show is that it‘s possible to push climate-friendly politics that work with (and through!) the economy, not against it. Maybe this could lead to a change. 20 years ago, Germany raised taxes on fuel, but that didn’t make anyone drive less. I’m guessing the same would happen with a tax on CO2. So I‘m favoring emissions allowances: Politics dictates a threshold of how much CO2 is permitted and gives out allowances, then the price develops on the market. But it feels like, for those „rebellions“, capitalism is the root of all evil.

perfunctory 7y ago
> So I‘m favoring emissions allowances The system already exists, isn't it? The so called "cap and trade" https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en But the cap is too high and the prices are too low. Would you accept it's ok to rebel to force the politicians to lower the cap? But also, wouldn't a lower cap lead to the "drastic life style changes for people" anyway (at least in the short term while the economy adapts)?
- grecht 7y ago
  > The system already exists Yes, but not for all industries. > Would you accept it‘s ok to rebel to force the politicians to lower the cap? If people rebel for realistic solutions I‘m all for it! > wouldn‘t a lower cap lead to the „drastic life style changes for people“ anyway (at least in the short term while the economy adapts) Yeah, probably! Surely not to the same extent like the carbon tax demanded by climate activists. But the idea is to incentivize companies to find more climate-friendly solutions. Certainly some companies would lose their competitive ability if they depend on high emissions, though.
raxxorrax 7y ago
Not only did it not reduce fuel consumption, the money was also used to fix holes in our social security system and almost nothing was done for the environment. Turned out people are dependent on cars. And they really are, to a degree that cannot be satisfied by public transport. People in Germany advocating an additional tax have either never worked, payed bills, are stupendously rich, just insane or don't have responsibilities towards others. Sorry, there is a limit on how much you can use taxes and that limit is staunchly in the red because of naive promises made in the past. I think the current little pupil rebellion is something very worth supporting. But their demands are naive. Your proposition would be a more efficient mechanism. Currently there is a discussion about giving people a fixed amount of money for the additional costs this tax would cause. What a waste of time...

bryanlarsen 7y ago

"Despite popular believe I don't think voting matters. " In the end, voting is the only thing that matters. Individual choices by a small minority of the population are going to be completely ineffectual without government setting policy so that doing the right thing is also doing the most profitable thing. But despite you being wrong in your core point in my opinion, you're absolutely right about the method. (change your lifestyle, divest fossil, direct action, civil disobedience) The reason that voting is useless is because voters don't care about the environment. Climate change is #11 in the list of top priorities for voters.[1]. Fix that, and then voting might make a difference. And you do that by making it clearly visible that it's important to you, and by convincing others that it's important to them. 1: https://news.gallup.com/poll/244367/top-issues-voters-health.. https://news.gallup.com/poll/244367/top-issues-voters-health....

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
perfunctory 7y ago
Thanks. "In the end" is a useful nuance. My "voting doesn't matter" was a bit of a hyperbole.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  Glad to hear it. Nihilism is rampant in these conversations and must be stomped on hard. Far too many believe that "extremely difficult" is the same as "impossible" so we should give up and do nothing. It was clear from the rest of your comment that you aren't one of those, but I fear they would find support in your comment. Confirmation bias would lead them to emphasize the "voting doesn't matter" part and ignore your call to action. [edit]: Rereading your comment, you're much more clear than I originally thought about all change being grass roots. Did you edit? If not it really emphasizes this point. I read "voting doesn't matter", hitting one of my hot buttons leading me to misread your comment. We're obviously in fairly close agreement, yet my response was to spout off an angry denunciation...
  - 7y ago

UglyToad 7y ago

While I agree with you overall I've been sliding more and more into fear and despondency. We need to put our countries on a 'war footing'. We have so many people who could be working to fix these problems stuck in offices doing stuff that there isn't really a need for (i.e. most all software development) because that's what the 'market' rewards. We need to completely overhaul what we think of as value and how we reward it. I don't see how that's possible under the current capitalist system and I don't see the majority of people supporting alternative systems. Imagine if we deployed the people power and innovation that currently gets wasted in competition between rival social media applications and redirected it to doing something about climate change. It's not possible for individuals to make that change however because at the end of the day they need to pay their landlord (who I regard as largely parasitic leeches on productivity) and buy food at the shops; and the roles that would allow them to contribute to this don't exist in the number, or at the wages, required. The cost of moving to zero emissions here in the UK was estimated as being £1 trillion so it was kind of kicked down the road to maybe slightly after 2050. Which is just mad. Sure China and India might be bigger emitters but someone has to make the first move. The innovations can then be shared for free with those countries, we can spend money to help them transition. This is our long term survival, we need to be less squeamish about taking what we need from "private property" (read tax havens, the stock market, etc). But clearly these changes aren't achievable at the speed and scale needed solely through voting. Democracies tend to limit themselves to a small range of acceptable views around a midpoint and take a long time to change even if there is a moral imperative, like the previous changes you mention; so I don't see how they can react at the speed necessary to fix this. In addition addressing climate change without addressing social justice won't work. As the article mentions the people most affected by this are going to overwhelmingly be poor and in less-developed countries. They're going to need to come somewhere when their regions become uninhabitable and while it's possible our response is to erect barriers (see Europe, US, etc) or build prison camps from a moral standpoint it can't be.

perfunctory 7y ago
> While I agree with you overall I've been sliding more and more into fear and despondency. I've gone through that stage too. Then I came out and decided I'm gonna do what I can, however little the impact might be. I am not hopeful or optimistic. I don't expect to succeed or fail. I am just gonna work on it.

Chris_Chambers 7y ago

People can't survive in Siberia either. Should we "do" something about that too? Stop shilling on behalf of carbon credit scam artists or whatever dirty money NGO monstrosity is hiding behind that link. I won't be clicking it because I don't want brain cancer.

Proven 7y ago

I bet this guy produces at least twice as much CO2 as I do. All Al Gorean hypocrites, please leave us alone.

dubya 7y ago

"Despite popular believe I don't think voting matters. " In the US, if you could just get more registered voters in Texas to actually vote it would completely flip the balance of power between the Dems and Republicans. The issue, supposedly, is that Texas has a "disproportionate number of young, poor, and uneducated citizens." This means that the (actually quite popular) idea that voting doesn't matter mostly benefits the party that has adopted ignorance as most of its platform.

sdegutis 7y ago

We need a moral change more than anything else. Otherwise nobody will be motivated enough. Not all the information in the world will convince someone who doesn't care. I used to be a bit baffled how people could say "fake news" at obvious facts and data and science. Then I read something Fulton Sheen said: never think too much about what someone says, but why they say it. He made this point about atheists, saying that they only choose not to believe in God so they can continue living an evil life. The same can be said of people who deny climate change and the seriousness of the matter, or any clear and demonstrable truth really.

CalRobert 7y ago

Also, run for office.

mariushn 7y ago

I've lost hope. The 3 big issues that I think prevents us solving it are 1. Tragedy of the commons When a country/company wants to make money by damaging the environment in the process, the money come to the country/company now, but the damage is spread world-wide. If the pollution would stay only in that country/city, it would be different. So, the choice is natural, especially considering government 4-year terms. 2. We always put ourselves first, rest of the city/country much further, and rest of the world... doesn't matter. What people want, by human nature, is to satisfy their own needs & comfort. Examples: * Why wait for a bus or use an electric bike when one can just drive a 2 tonnes car to move oneself? It's comfortable and cheap. * USA-specific, but spreading to other countries as well: people huge SUV-style cars to transport 1-2 persons, when a small one could do the job as well. * Norway refuses to drill for billions of barrels of oil in Arctic, leaving ‘whole industry surprised and disappointed’. Government made the right choice, but a few (prosperous already) affected by making less money complain: https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/norway-oil-drilling-arctic-ban-labor-party-unions-a8861171.html https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/norway-oil-drillin... * France introduces a diesel tax, to reduce pollution, which affects everybody's health. But, wait, some need to pay a little more? Let's protest! Tax was cancelled: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/11/french-protests-gilets-jaunes-emmanuel-macron-gas-diesel-tax/576196/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/11/french-protes... * The Bełchatów Coal mine & Power station in Poland. Hundreds of people employed there, they are happy with it. Should the plant be closed to stop pollution? What about our jobs? No way! And no, getting only 20% of salary for free (basic income) and having to learn stuff to maybe find a new job in renewables is not acceptable. So, the coal plant goes on, but it's easier to point to China for doing the same (with more plants, of course). 3. Delayed effects of current actions The environment effects of what a one person/community/country does, bad or good, are hard to see in the short term. Only the downsides are clearly visible in the present. So, taking the correct action is quite hard. Unfortunately, I don't see how to overcome these. Would be glad to be proved wrong! FYI, my personal environment footprint is much smaller than the average in EU/USA, but we are too few to make an impact and others won't listen/change.

bryanlarsen 7y ago
> Unfortunately, I don't see how to overcome these. Would be glad to be proved wrong! Here's a solution at the international level: https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/ https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/ At the national level I believe the problem is slightly easier (though still extremely difficult). We generally have effective national institutions, so we "just" have to convince the populace that the pain is worth the gain. It's easier to stomach a little bit of pain for the common good as long as people believe that everybody else is also doing their part.

iuguy 7y ago

1. The oceans are being murdered: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ocean-is-running-out-of-breath-scientists-warn/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ocean-is-runn... 2. Deforestation is destroying the environment: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warmin... 3. 24 billion tons of fertile soil disappears every year: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/26/land-degradation-is-undermining-human-wellbeing-un-report-warns https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/26/land-deg... 4. Large animals are dying out: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/66/10/807/2236134 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/66/10/807/223613... 5. At the other end of the scale, insects are disappearing: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320718313636 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632071... 6. This is because we're in the middle of the 6th major mass extinction event the Earth has experienced, and this is our doing: https://truthout.org/articles/sixth-mass-extinction-ushers-in-record-breaking-wildfires-and-heat/ https://truthout.org/articles/sixth-mass-extinction-ushers-i... 7. And we're polluting the planet so badly, plastics are showing up inside our bodies: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/10/news-plastics-microplastics-human-feces/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/10/news-...

jjtheblunt 7y ago

Advocating civil disobedience seems perilously close to advocating incoherence, when it's coherent actionable efforts that might help, no?

Barrin92 7y ago
only if civil disobedience produces fewer results than "coherent actionable efforts". The US has quite a long history of effective civil discontent, the highway revolts and the civil rights movement of course being two examples. To be honest I hear a lot of people talking about actionable efforts all the time, but if they're so actionable, why aren't they happening? Isn't that the definition of the term?
- jjtheblunt 7y ago
  good points (seriously)

mirimir 7y ago

About voting. It is true that the movements you cite all relied on direct action in building awareness. However, actual changes came from executive and/or legislative action. And arguably none of them would have succeeded if the government had been unreceptive. So I'd say it's lifestyle change, direct action and voting.

nmeofthestate 7y ago

Advocating self-denial (and going on protests) by billions of people is a non-starter and won't solve the problem. It smacks of a pseudo-religious attitude that we have to suffer to solve climate change. Fixes that really work will have to be at the source - the energy generation stage, making existing lifestyles zero carbon. Bear in mind that billions more people have yet to achieve the comfortable high-energy-use lifestyles that we enjoy.

chroma 7y ago

No civilization has ever voluntarily reduced resource consumption. The incentives and coordination issues make it impossible. There is only one way to get what you want: build what is effectively a world government and coerce everyone to reduce their consumption. That includes people in countries such as India, China, and Indonesia. They'll need to be told by rich westerners that they can't do the things that we did to get rich. Good luck with that. A far more practical solution is to innovate our way out of the problem. That means more cost-effective green technologies, geoengineering, and adaptive technologies (such as air conditioning, building underground, heat sinks, etc). Those would allow us to keep growing economically, maintain people's quality of life, and it doesn't fail if China or India continue on their current path.

bryanlarsen 7y ago
World government is not necessary: https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/ https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/
- chroma 7y ago
  I said, "…build what is effectively a world government and coerce everyone to reduce their consumption." That article says we need to build a global organization that can coerce everyone reduce their carbon emissions. I don't see how my statement was incorrect.
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    I guess you can see "join the club or pay massive import tariffs" as coercion, but it's less of a world government than existing free trade agreements with their dispute handling mechanisms are.
julbaxter 7y ago
"Maintaining people's quality of life" is already a denial of reality. And "China or India will continue on their current path" as long as our air conditioning, computers, and other objects will be built over there.

redleggedfrog 7y ago

You're taking a human centric view here. As misanthropic as it may sound, it's entirely possible that this is just a correction in the tiny fraction of the great span of geologic time we happen to be living in. Similar to how the human body gets a fever to fight off an infection, we have the earth heating up to a level destroys the destructive pathogen - us. I suppose it's possible that we get wise enough to deserve continue on as a species, but at this point I doubt it. I don't see anything in humanity that would lead me to believe it's capable of making the cohesive decisions to remedy the situation. Something else will come along in a few million years and maybe they'll do a better job of it.

KUcxrAVrtI 7y ago

>Women suffrage If voting doesn't matter why would giving women the vote matter?

foobiekr 7y ago

Have fewer children.

tomjen3 7y ago

I don't know why you want scared people -- if you really wanted to solve this, you want become who are as rational as you can get. Scared people are only going to run in panic and will do the first thing that is presented "because something must be done". I also see that you have fallen into the trap of thinking that there is anything you _can_ do personally.