8 ms·
> Like there's was a dip in CO2 emiisions during covid, but only like a 15%. Who's producing the rest? While I agree very much about the absurd logic of trying
by baron_harkonnen 6y ago
> Like there's was a dip in CO2 emiisions during covid, but only like a 15%. Who's producing the rest?
While I agree very much about the absurd logic of trying to put the solutions to climate change on individuals, I am honestly perplexed that you don't seem to understand how all of your daily consumption contributes to climate change.
CO2 emissions doesn't just come from driving your car. If you ordered anything delivered from amazon that created CO2, if you live in a developing city your environment creates CO2, if you consume food that is grown non-locally or that uses fertilizer that also create CO2.
It's not just a "small number of companies" it's every company and every part of our modern life. Look around you and I can assure you that most of the things you see where shipped around the globe using ships powered by bunker fuel, they were made with materials gathered using a non-trivial amount of non-renewable energy.
Again, I agree that we can't expect that individually we'll all radically alter our lives and live like it's 1800, but it is essential to realize who much of your current way of live contributes to the enormous production of CO2.
The fact that things slowed down and we decreased emissions by some notable percentage but we suffered incredible economic consequences for this show just how unsustainable our entire way of life is.
- mattmanser 6y agoAre you an idiot? Or do you really order from amazon like 10 times a day? It doesn't add up mate, there's a lot of misdirection going on.
- bamboozled 6y agoWhat about just simplifying it and saying that, the majority of the reason for climate change is burning coal and oil ? I don’t think we need to regress back to living in mud clay huts and blocking Amazon orders. We did need to stop burning coal for generating power 100 years ago.
- vertis 6y agoIt's nowhere near that simple though. CO2 is one big contributor, but not the only one. Methane is also a big contributor[1], and things like beef production are a big part of increased Methane emissions (by no means the only source). [1]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/methane/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warmin...
- bamboozled 6y agoFood production is of course part of it, but it's harder to solve because people need to eat. We don't need to burn coal or oil anymore en masse.
- tonyedgecombe 6y agoThey don't need to eat beef though, emissions from other meats are much lower.
- mehrdadn 6y agoChanging food production is possibly one of the easiest ways to attack climate change, as far as physical/biological feasibility goes (desires of tastebuds notwithstanding). Nobody trying to tackle food production suggests you should become malnourished for the sake of the climate.
- devdas 6y agoLowering dairy and beef consumption would go a long way to reduce that damage.
- austhrow743 6y agoPeople needing to eat would be the equivalent of people needing energy in this scenario. People need to eat specifically meat like they need to burn specifically coal and oil.
- radus 6y agoPeople need to do and same goes for some of our food. As it relates to cows, there is research showing that the emissions they produce are dependent on their feed, and that methane in particular can be reduced through the use of additives such as seaweed. However, it's not clear that this particular strategy would be effective in the long-term, and we would need to produce a LOT of seaweed in order to have a significant impact.
- bamboozled 6y agoTake a look at this: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... You can see there, that at least in the US (a major producer of beef) that there are much larger problems for us to solve before we focus on diet.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y agoOkay. So I'm a poor blue voting unskilled person in a rural blue district. What can I possibly do to have a positive measurable effect on global GHG emissions?
- jfoutz 6y agoStretch those dollars. Put a little money in your car, if you can. Keep it running well, it'll use less gas. Making a new car makes a ton of carbon. Getting every last mile out of what you got helps everyone. Look for stuff that will last forever. A good set of boots you oil will last a long, long time. You can get them resoled. Iron skillets are super cheap and will outlast you. The stupid handle will fall off of a cheap skillet. The number one thing is make the most of what you got. Stuff wears out. Next time around, look for stuff that'll last longer. Look for second hand stuff that can be repaired. there's a lot of great old tools out there that'll give years of service. (this is basically just the first two parts of reduce, reuse, and recycle. the first two have the biggest impact.)
- changoplatanero 6y agoEven if everyone in the world did everything that you're saying here would it be enough to have a positive measurable effect on the total co2 in the atmosphere?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoIf everyone in the world chose fuel efficient vehicles and carpooled or used mass transit appropriately, yes, that would have a measurable long run effect. It wouldn't be enough on its own to completely solve the problem but it would be progress.
- superflit 6y agoThen the answer is no. I will not pay more taxes indirectly for feelings
- roenxi 6y ago> It's not just a "small number of companies" To be specific, it probably is a small number of companies but they are enablers, like specialist transport companies. The global shipping industry is a major polluter relative to other industries, but shut that down hastily and all imported goods disappear.