8 ms·

Okay. 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 ago
Stretch 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 ago
  Even 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 ago
    If 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 ago
      Then the answer is no. I will not pay more taxes indirectly for feelings
      - CraigJPerry 6y ago
        Yawn. Excusing your abdication of personal duty to future generations through hand-wavey ideology. It’s ok for previous generations to pay for the roads that allow you to travel and sell your wares or skills but a tax on your pollution to stave off mass re-settling of people in your lifetime would violate your sensibilities.
        superflit 6y ago
        I already paid for the "roads" three times and still paying in taxes on fuel.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        The answer to what is no? I don't think anyone asked you a question. Many of the most fuel efficient vehicles are relatively cheaper than the less fuel efficient ones. For example, luxury sedans and sports cars tend to be less efficient than economy sedans, but economy sedans are (perhaps obviously from the name) cheaper. So by doing the environmentally efficient thing, you would actually be saving money, not spending more.
        superflit 6y ago
        You used a question mark can't you see?
        asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24361000 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24361000 I don't see any question mark, nor any question.
        superflit 6y ago
        You are right I mean to answer to the parent poster. (yes, I can accept I am wrong) :) No hard feelings!
    - bigiain 6y ago
      If enough people (not even everyone, just enough that the single digit percent voting majority a lot of politicians have in their electorates looks potentially like it could swing towards environmentalism), it'd send a message with a huge multiplier potential. Individual actions are important, because corporate and government change will not happen from the top down, it _has_ to be pushed from the bottom up.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  Okay. I already do this to the best of my ability and have been for my adult life because I perform rudimentary cost benefit analysis and research my options for every possible purchase. While there are other steps I could take I lack the time, land, capital, or skills to install hydro/geo/thermal power at my house, or upgrade my homes perfectly average weatherization to class leading options. I don't think my efforts have made any measurable impact on the climate, but I always want to make sure I'm not missing a step. I think it's beginning to become clear that consumers cannot suffer climate change away and change must be forced upon the worst offenders first. Not taking responsibility off of myself, but recognizing that, despite my votes against Congress members that support, the military industrial complex, is still one of the worst polluters globally. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report-the-u-s-military-emits-more-co2-than-many-industrialized-nations-infographic/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report...
  - bigiain 6y ago
    I think there's two related but different fights there. The "worst offenders" are rich and powerful, and will argue very effectively and brutally to congress that they should be allowed to continue to get richer and more powerful. That's the nature of power. That's a political problem and needs political solutions. But... Their arguments are _so_ much more powerful when they can look at the congress members and say "No one cares anyway! Look at all the voters buying SUVs instead of hybrids or electrics! Look at them all flying to Vegas and Paris and Bankok every year! Look at them not installing solar power. They! Dont! Care! The VOTERS don't care!!! (Oh, and speaking of flying to Paris, here's 4 first class tickets, enjoy...)"
  - jfoutz 6y ago
    So, I think you're saying a couple of things. 1) what can you personally do to make a globally detectable change. I can't really think of anything. I can't think of a single person who contributes in a meaningful way to climate change. Atlas is a myth. there is no person holding the world on their shoulders. So, like, don't sweat it. I want to highlight durability and repairability over disposability. I wasn't super explicit about it, so let me say it now. Cheap disposable shit sucks. Costs a lot to make, but it's cheaper than something that's durable, resealable, repairable. I think that there is a huge part of the problem. As a concrete example, my grandma had the same tv for like 40 years, and the cabinet wound up turning into something else for one of my cousins. I'm looking at a big TV, and I'm not super sure I'll be able to plug it into anything in 10 years, if it even still works. I like it, I don't regret my choice, but I really didn't have the option for a full spectrum cost/benefit. They just don't make things like that that will probably work in 50 years. 2) I'm not sure what you mean about consumers suffering climate change. Here's another (perhaps silly example) I got an original iPhone. I'd still use that if it was feasible. I mean, I've got it in a drawer, I could probably figure it out, but the whole system avoids any longevity or resale value. I think it wouldn't take too much effort to shift just a little bit to longevity. I have a fancy pants phone, it's stupid. I didn't have a choice about getting a new phone cause the old one broke. The old one shouldn't have broken, it should have been a lot easier to find someone's hand me down. Right now that's like taking some rando from craigslist cash. ugh. 3) I have complicated thoughts about the military. I absolutely believe the US military is one of the worst offenders. The US military was also one of the first to integrate with respect to race, and later with respect to gender. I think you've identified a real opportunity, that's a place that could absolutely lead the way. Finding the political will do actually do something is pretty tough. all the old arguments will come out - this endangers the safety of the nation. -- final edit -- This is tasteless, I'll honor it. Was perhaps trying to appear committed, but it's more of an arrogant ass thing to close with. -- Tell you what though, if you think you can fix it, I'll donate $100 to your campaign, or charity. my username at gmail. ping me and I'll honor my claim. -- terms and conditions edit -- it's gotta be you. not, of your choice. You. I might also need a link to this to remember how silly I am from time to time.
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  Yes, the money you spend has a pretty strong correlation with your environmental impact. I remember a presentation from Jeffrey Sachs that put a sustainable level of spending at about $10,000 USD per person. There are no Teslas on a green planet.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    I have the impression that average spending is about $10K per person, for the whole world. I don't have any opinion about whether that's sustainable, but I don't think there's any reason why sustainability requires equality of consumption.
    - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
      Given that it was for a US audience I assumed it was adjusted for purchasing parity. After all the main point of the talk was the problem is real and caused by excess consumption. It is an interesting point about equality given that the problem really does originate from the richer parts of the world. A subsistence farmer in Africa is going to have a carbon footprint several orders of magnitude smaller than the typical SV inhabitant. Even now poorer countries are arguing that they should be able to increase their emissions because they haven't created the problem. At the same time politicians in the richer part of the world are terrified of falling living standards. Because of this I doubt we can fix it in time but if we did it would probably look somewhat socialistic.
TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
Talk openly about wanting things to improve. Contact your local representivies. Encourage others.
- hunter-gatherer 6y ago
  In addition to talking to local representatives, you could also not have kids, refrain from meat, and be conservative about air travel. But ultimately, we are all tied in this together. It might be a weird irony that many of the same people on HN who are concerned about climate change work for companies that look to optimize consumption. Not pointing fingers, just saying... we probably need serious government interference to hey things under control. But nobody (including me) wants that.
  - moneytide1 6y ago
    > we probably need serious government interference We should allocate tax money to field an army of Federal Inspectors. I'm sure this already exists somewhat on a smaller scale for EPA audits (though the EPA has been recently stripped of many resources and responsibility by the current administration). It may not be necessary to give an Inspector the power to levy fines, because his/her purpose would be to discreetly patrol different cities talking to people about how they live their lives, while observing behavior and local conditions. This would create accountability and be a more personal way to collect data about public sentiment. It could also create ripples in local conversation - "I talked to a G-woman today! She walked by while I was watering the garden and asked how my day was going and asked what I had for lunch - she says she's reducing meat consumption even though she loves the taste. I told her that I've been trying to sort my trash and she said 'keep up the good work'!. She was a very nice, pretty lady!" We do not want to impose "enforcement" as much as we want to develop a polite, cordial federal presence (in the flesh) that sets a good example in order to sculpt citizen habits throughout the nation. It is the presence of authority without the fear of enforcement. It also sets a precedent ("wow, they are serious about this!"). A very recent "example" on front page Reddit today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BINH6NgnHTM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BINH6NgnHTM I'm not sure if this has happened before, but I believe it is an example of things to come. Public health is a security issue - I can understand Australian law enforcement responding [in the flesh] to local social media activity (anti-lockdown protest organization attempt). However, in the video it seems they are there to enforce, with a house warrant and handcuffs. A slap on the wrist can steer a citizen in the proper direction, but it can also generate resentment. I wouldn't want an "EPA Accountability Agent" to ever be resented. We would want them to exist as a strong, caring, curious, and relatable presence. We need this kind of accountability now that the internet has ironically divided many people on some fundamentals. There's so much information out there and not enough naturally instilled intuition as to what is worth paying attention to. Love your username, by the way. Long-term one day I'd like to be the warden of a piece of land and set up a such a diverse permaculture that eventually when I'm hungry, I would just go out to "gather" what I need fresh off the stalk.
zepolen 6y ago
Plant a tree.
- tintor 6y ago
  This! Plant many trees.
  - sergeykish 6y ago
    A lot of trees. > A household’s carbon footprint generally increases with its income, ranging from 19.3 to 91.5 tons of CO2-equivalent annually. [1] > It is estimated that forests absorb between 10 and 20 tons of carbon dioxide per hectare each year. [2] Reforestation costs about $1500/hectare [3], substantial but it is a lifetime investment. [1] https://theconversation.com/5-charts-show-how-your-household-drives-up-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-119968 https://theconversation.com/5-charts-show-how-your-household... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink [3] https://www.google.com/search?q=reforestation+cost+per+hectare https://www.google.com/search?q=reforestation+cost+per+hecta...
    - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
      So owning and maintaining about 15 acres of forest.
adrianN 6y ago
You could join the citizen's climate lobby[1], and encourage others to reduce their climate impact. [1] https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
bigiain 6y ago
The highest impact things an individual can do, roughly in order are: Don't have children. Don't own a car. Don't fly internationally. Don't eat meat. Don't eat dairy. Don't eat imported food. And you don't need to be a hardline child-free bicycle riding vegan hippy to make a difference. Reductions in all those things will make a difference. Have fewer children. Choose to own a more efficient car and choose to drive it less. Reduce your long distance and international travel. Eat more plant based food and less meat and dairy. Eat more locally sourced and seasonal food. And there are other lesser impact things too: live in a smaller and better insulated house. Prioritise efficiency higher - choose to buy more efficient appliances. Use low energy lighting. Choose to live near where you work/play/socialise. Choose lower carbon impact hobbies and recreation, perhaps a sailing boat instead of a ski boat? Perhaps athletic sports instead of Nascar? At a bigger picture level. Vote for the planet, appropriately prioritise climate change policies in your voting choices (and with two party politics, this can be difficult to do, don't vote in a facist just because they're a treehugger, but try to also not vote in your own self-interest if that candidate is deeply in bed with the fossil fuel lobby). Focus your career towards ecologically sound companies/industries where you can - actively seek and choose jobs with climate change in mind, if you have a choice between two roles consider carefully before jumping to the slightly higher paid fossil fuel job. When making or contributing to decisions at work, ensure consideration for climate impact is brought up where appropriate. And make a noise. Be publicly unsatisfied, even if you have no solutions. Let other people know you care, even if you can't see any real way to make a difference yourself.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Reductions in all those things will make a difference. As choices left to the individual? Not likely. Only systemic/legal changes would have any impact...
  - bigiain 6y ago
    And there's zero chance of systemic/legal changes without the voting public making it clear (by their individual actions and choices) that it matters to them. Sea Shepherd, for example, are crazy far-end-of-the-bell-curve outliers. In my mind they're one of the ecological equivalents of RMS. Actions and choices that go way beyond what most people would consider sensible or necessary, but who're critically important for the movements they represent, because the "other side" has much worse and many more outliers in the "wrong direction". Without the work RMS has done over decades and the example he's set - flawed as he is - we could not have open source in the position it is today. Sea Shepherd lobbing jars putrecene onto the decks of Japanese whaling "research" ships in the middle of the ocean is insane. But seeing suburban moms wearing Sea Shepherd tshirts in shopping malls and parks and political protests has without doubt made political candidates think differently.
renewiltord 6y ago
Nothing really. You can vote for a carbon tax or some cap and trade system but that's not going to be immediately measurable. If you're an individual poor person you are insignificant. You have no leverage so you can't increase impact easily and you have low consumption anyway so no lifestyle change will matter.
mint2 6y ago
Small actions that are inconsequential when considered as single event add up to big changes when 1% or 10% of people do them. This goes for positive or negative actions. It only takes a small fraction of people littering to make somewhere nice into a trash heap. They say eating less beef is good for the environment but that doesn’t mean you have to become a vegetarian immediately. If you eat 1/3 less meat, that could be just by skipping meat in a meal or two each week or eating slightly smaller portions, there’s likely many people like you. Not everyone can or will become vegetarian but by making the change to eat a bit less meat all every three people like you are creating a vegetarian equivalent. One big change is realizing that while everyone is unique, countless people will be making similar decisions at any given moment.

jfoutz 6y ago

Stretch 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 ago
Even 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 ago
  If 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 ago
    Then the answer is no. I will not pay more taxes indirectly for feelings
    - CraigJPerry 6y ago
      Yawn. Excusing your abdication of personal duty to future generations through hand-wavey ideology. It’s ok for previous generations to pay for the roads that allow you to travel and sell your wares or skills but a tax on your pollution to stave off mass re-settling of people in your lifetime would violate your sensibilities.
      - superflit 6y ago
        I already paid for the "roads" three times and still paying in taxes on fuel.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      The answer to what is no? I don't think anyone asked you a question. Many of the most fuel efficient vehicles are relatively cheaper than the less fuel efficient ones. For example, luxury sedans and sports cars tend to be less efficient than economy sedans, but economy sedans are (perhaps obviously from the name) cheaper. So by doing the environmentally efficient thing, you would actually be saving money, not spending more.
      - superflit 6y ago
        You used a question mark can't you see?
        asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24361000 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24361000 I don't see any question mark, nor any question.
        superflit 6y ago
        You are right I mean to answer to the parent poster. (yes, I can accept I am wrong) :) No hard feelings!
  - bigiain 6y ago
    If enough people (not even everyone, just enough that the single digit percent voting majority a lot of politicians have in their electorates looks potentially like it could swing towards environmentalism), it'd send a message with a huge multiplier potential. Individual actions are important, because corporate and government change will not happen from the top down, it _has_ to be pushed from the bottom up.
Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
Okay. I already do this to the best of my ability and have been for my adult life because I perform rudimentary cost benefit analysis and research my options for every possible purchase. While there are other steps I could take I lack the time, land, capital, or skills to install hydro/geo/thermal power at my house, or upgrade my homes perfectly average weatherization to class leading options. I don't think my efforts have made any measurable impact on the climate, but I always want to make sure I'm not missing a step. I think it's beginning to become clear that consumers cannot suffer climate change away and change must be forced upon the worst offenders first. Not taking responsibility off of myself, but recognizing that, despite my votes against Congress members that support, the military industrial complex, is still one of the worst polluters globally. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report-the-u-s-military-emits-more-co2-than-many-industrialized-nations-infographic/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report...
- bigiain 6y ago
  I think there's two related but different fights there. The "worst offenders" are rich and powerful, and will argue very effectively and brutally to congress that they should be allowed to continue to get richer and more powerful. That's the nature of power. That's a political problem and needs political solutions. But... Their arguments are _so_ much more powerful when they can look at the congress members and say "No one cares anyway! Look at all the voters buying SUVs instead of hybrids or electrics! Look at them all flying to Vegas and Paris and Bankok every year! Look at them not installing solar power. They! Dont! Care! The VOTERS don't care!!! (Oh, and speaking of flying to Paris, here's 4 first class tickets, enjoy...)"
- jfoutz 6y ago
  So, I think you're saying a couple of things. 1) what can you personally do to make a globally detectable change. I can't really think of anything. I can't think of a single person who contributes in a meaningful way to climate change. Atlas is a myth. there is no person holding the world on their shoulders. So, like, don't sweat it. I want to highlight durability and repairability over disposability. I wasn't super explicit about it, so let me say it now. Cheap disposable shit sucks. Costs a lot to make, but it's cheaper than something that's durable, resealable, repairable. I think that there is a huge part of the problem. As a concrete example, my grandma had the same tv for like 40 years, and the cabinet wound up turning into something else for one of my cousins. I'm looking at a big TV, and I'm not super sure I'll be able to plug it into anything in 10 years, if it even still works. I like it, I don't regret my choice, but I really didn't have the option for a full spectrum cost/benefit. They just don't make things like that that will probably work in 50 years. 2) I'm not sure what you mean about consumers suffering climate change. Here's another (perhaps silly example) I got an original iPhone. I'd still use that if it was feasible. I mean, I've got it in a drawer, I could probably figure it out, but the whole system avoids any longevity or resale value. I think it wouldn't take too much effort to shift just a little bit to longevity. I have a fancy pants phone, it's stupid. I didn't have a choice about getting a new phone cause the old one broke. The old one shouldn't have broken, it should have been a lot easier to find someone's hand me down. Right now that's like taking some rando from craigslist cash. ugh. 3) I have complicated thoughts about the military. I absolutely believe the US military is one of the worst offenders. The US military was also one of the first to integrate with respect to race, and later with respect to gender. I think you've identified a real opportunity, that's a place that could absolutely lead the way. Finding the political will do actually do something is pretty tough. all the old arguments will come out - this endangers the safety of the nation. -- final edit -- This is tasteless, I'll honor it. Was perhaps trying to appear committed, but it's more of an arrogant ass thing to close with. -- Tell you what though, if you think you can fix it, I'll donate $100 to your campaign, or charity. my username at gmail. ping me and I'll honor my claim. -- terms and conditions edit -- it's gotta be you. not, of your choice. You. I might also need a link to this to remember how silly I am from time to time.
tonyedgecombe 6y ago
Yes, the money you spend has a pretty strong correlation with your environmental impact. I remember a presentation from Jeffrey Sachs that put a sustainable level of spending at about $10,000 USD per person. There are no Teslas on a green planet.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  I have the impression that average spending is about $10K per person, for the whole world. I don't have any opinion about whether that's sustainable, but I don't think there's any reason why sustainability requires equality of consumption.
  - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
    Given that it was for a US audience I assumed it was adjusted for purchasing parity. After all the main point of the talk was the problem is real and caused by excess consumption. It is an interesting point about equality given that the problem really does originate from the richer parts of the world. A subsistence farmer in Africa is going to have a carbon footprint several orders of magnitude smaller than the typical SV inhabitant. Even now poorer countries are arguing that they should be able to increase their emissions because they haven't created the problem. At the same time politicians in the richer part of the world are terrified of falling living standards. Because of this I doubt we can fix it in time but if we did it would probably look somewhat socialistic.

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago

Talk openly about wanting things to improve. Contact your local representivies. Encourage others.

hunter-gatherer 6y ago
In addition to talking to local representatives, you could also not have kids, refrain from meat, and be conservative about air travel. But ultimately, we are all tied in this together. It might be a weird irony that many of the same people on HN who are concerned about climate change work for companies that look to optimize consumption. Not pointing fingers, just saying... we probably need serious government interference to hey things under control. But nobody (including me) wants that.
- moneytide1 6y ago
  > we probably need serious government interference We should allocate tax money to field an army of Federal Inspectors. I'm sure this already exists somewhat on a smaller scale for EPA audits (though the EPA has been recently stripped of many resources and responsibility by the current administration). It may not be necessary to give an Inspector the power to levy fines, because his/her purpose would be to discreetly patrol different cities talking to people about how they live their lives, while observing behavior and local conditions. This would create accountability and be a more personal way to collect data about public sentiment. It could also create ripples in local conversation - "I talked to a G-woman today! She walked by while I was watering the garden and asked how my day was going and asked what I had for lunch - she says she's reducing meat consumption even though she loves the taste. I told her that I've been trying to sort my trash and she said 'keep up the good work'!. She was a very nice, pretty lady!" We do not want to impose "enforcement" as much as we want to develop a polite, cordial federal presence (in the flesh) that sets a good example in order to sculpt citizen habits throughout the nation. It is the presence of authority without the fear of enforcement. It also sets a precedent ("wow, they are serious about this!"). A very recent "example" on front page Reddit today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BINH6NgnHTM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BINH6NgnHTM I'm not sure if this has happened before, but I believe it is an example of things to come. Public health is a security issue - I can understand Australian law enforcement responding [in the flesh] to local social media activity (anti-lockdown protest organization attempt). However, in the video it seems they are there to enforce, with a house warrant and handcuffs. A slap on the wrist can steer a citizen in the proper direction, but it can also generate resentment. I wouldn't want an "EPA Accountability Agent" to ever be resented. We would want them to exist as a strong, caring, curious, and relatable presence. We need this kind of accountability now that the internet has ironically divided many people on some fundamentals. There's so much information out there and not enough naturally instilled intuition as to what is worth paying attention to. Love your username, by the way. Long-term one day I'd like to be the warden of a piece of land and set up a such a diverse permaculture that eventually when I'm hungry, I would just go out to "gather" what I need fresh off the stalk.

zepolen 6y ago

Plant a tree.

tintor 6y ago
This! Plant many trees.
- sergeykish 6y ago
  A lot of trees. > A household’s carbon footprint generally increases with its income, ranging from 19.3 to 91.5 tons of CO2-equivalent annually. [1] > It is estimated that forests absorb between 10 and 20 tons of carbon dioxide per hectare each year. [2] Reforestation costs about $1500/hectare [3], substantial but it is a lifetime investment. [1] https://theconversation.com/5-charts-show-how-your-household-drives-up-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-119968 https://theconversation.com/5-charts-show-how-your-household... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink [3] https://www.google.com/search?q=reforestation+cost+per+hectare https://www.google.com/search?q=reforestation+cost+per+hecta...
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
    So owning and maintaining about 15 acres of forest.

adrianN 6y ago

You could join the citizen's climate lobby[1], and encourage others to reduce their climate impact. [1] https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/

bigiain 6y ago

The highest impact things an individual can do, roughly in order are: Don't have children. Don't own a car. Don't fly internationally. Don't eat meat. Don't eat dairy. Don't eat imported food. And you don't need to be a hardline child-free bicycle riding vegan hippy to make a difference. Reductions in all those things will make a difference. Have fewer children. Choose to own a more efficient car and choose to drive it less. Reduce your long distance and international travel. Eat more plant based food and less meat and dairy. Eat more locally sourced and seasonal food. And there are other lesser impact things too: live in a smaller and better insulated house. Prioritise efficiency higher - choose to buy more efficient appliances. Use low energy lighting. Choose to live near where you work/play/socialise. Choose lower carbon impact hobbies and recreation, perhaps a sailing boat instead of a ski boat? Perhaps athletic sports instead of Nascar? At a bigger picture level. Vote for the planet, appropriately prioritise climate change policies in your voting choices (and with two party politics, this can be difficult to do, don't vote in a facist just because they're a treehugger, but try to also not vote in your own self-interest if that candidate is deeply in bed with the fossil fuel lobby). Focus your career towards ecologically sound companies/industries where you can - actively seek and choose jobs with climate change in mind, if you have a choice between two roles consider carefully before jumping to the slightly higher paid fossil fuel job. When making or contributing to decisions at work, ensure consideration for climate impact is brought up where appropriate. And make a noise. Be publicly unsatisfied, even if you have no solutions. Let other people know you care, even if you can't see any real way to make a difference yourself.

coldtea 6y ago
>Reductions in all those things will make a difference. As choices left to the individual? Not likely. Only systemic/legal changes would have any impact...
- bigiain 6y ago
  And there's zero chance of systemic/legal changes without the voting public making it clear (by their individual actions and choices) that it matters to them. Sea Shepherd, for example, are crazy far-end-of-the-bell-curve outliers. In my mind they're one of the ecological equivalents of RMS. Actions and choices that go way beyond what most people would consider sensible or necessary, but who're critically important for the movements they represent, because the "other side" has much worse and many more outliers in the "wrong direction". Without the work RMS has done over decades and the example he's set - flawed as he is - we could not have open source in the position it is today. Sea Shepherd lobbing jars putrecene onto the decks of Japanese whaling "research" ships in the middle of the ocean is insane. But seeing suburban moms wearing Sea Shepherd tshirts in shopping malls and parks and political protests has without doubt made political candidates think differently.

renewiltord 6y ago

Nothing really. You can vote for a carbon tax or some cap and trade system but that's not going to be immediately measurable. If you're an individual poor person you are insignificant. You have no leverage so you can't increase impact easily and you have low consumption anyway so no lifestyle change will matter.

mint2 6y ago

Small actions that are inconsequential when considered as single event add up to big changes when 1% or 10% of people do them. This goes for positive or negative actions. It only takes a small fraction of people littering to make somewhere nice into a trash heap. They say eating less beef is good for the environment but that doesn’t mean you have to become a vegetarian immediately. If you eat 1/3 less meat, that could be just by skipping meat in a meal or two each week or eating slightly smaller portions, there’s likely many people like you. Not everyone can or will become vegetarian but by making the change to eat a bit less meat all every three people like you are creating a vegetarian equivalent. One big change is realizing that while everyone is unique, countless people will be making similar decisions at any given moment.