5 ms·

I'm a contrarian when it comes to this subject :-) Millions of people make small changes to distract themselves from changes that would make a real difference.

I'm a contrarian when it comes to this subject :-) Millions of people make small changes to distract themselves from changes that would make a real difference. Not doing anything may at least have a chance of making them aware that something must be done. You'll notice this phenomenon in lots of areas, first of all fitness. But that's just my opinion.

jugjug 6y ago
This. Less flying, less buying, less meet, less consumerism, more local & seasonal food. No need to go full 100%: it would be enough if critical mass reaches a good-enough level.
- adrianN 6y ago
  No, it wouldn't be enough. This year has been the perfect experiment: Through massive, massive, restrictions in our normal life we managed to reduce CO2 emissions by what, 30%? Say we could do it even better if everyone became vegan and only rode bicycles and we reduce them by 70%. Awesome. That about triples the time we have until we need to reach net zero emissions. It probably also crashes the economy that's supposed to pay for the modernization and replacement of our whole energy infrastructure.
  - bluntfang 6y ago
    You're right, but if enough people include thoughts like "what can I do personally to reduce my carbon footprint" and take action, then those conversions and actions end up making their way into the meeting rooms and board rooms.
    - wmf 6y ago
      That already happened to the extent that it's going to happen. Awareness has been fully raised and now it's time for systemic change.
      - bluntfang 6y ago
        It really hasn't. If it really had, then the meat industry would be tanking.
  - orwin 6y ago
    >Through massive, massive, restrictions in our normal life we managed to reduce CO2 emissions by what, 30%? most likely 4-6% by the end of the year is europe goes back to the same lockdown as in march. To reduce that to needed levels by 2050 (to reach the 2°C by 2100 "best" scenario), you need -5% every year since last year. Its in the bag for 2020 at least, so that's great.
jackdh 6y ago
Can you expand on what you mean by fitness here?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pizza234 6y ago
  Yes. Not many people enjoy physical activity; this is totally fine - everyone has their own taste. However, a certain amount of activity is required to maintain a minimal amount of fitness. Smart training can even take, in worst case, one hour a week. What I typically observe in people who refuse to do even the bare minimum of activity, is that they find a "non-activity", and pretend it works. What they're actually doing is instead to find something that takes virtually no effort while giving the illusion that they've absolved the duty. Very typical non-activities: walking and climbing stairs. (This is a bit complex suject of course, because if we take somebody who sits 24/7 on a chair/couch, of course walking is better than nothing - but I'm referring to the principle)
  - nojvek 6y ago
    Walking an hour would require a decent amount of fitness. Not sure why you’re saying it’s a non-activity
    - pizza234 6y ago
      Well, unless one is severely overweight, walking is a very light activity - it actively employs very few muscles and has a very minimal cardiovascular impact. However, this is a bit odd in context. If one considers a population where 60%+ of the population has 30%+ of bodyfat percentage, then it's impossible to define what constitutes fitness - even one flight of stairs, in a sense, requires a decent amount of training. In at least northern Europe, hiking is relatively common for elderlies (people in their 60s) - and this amounts to hours of walking in rough terrains, so definitely, for a person who's not (considerably) overweight, and hour of walks in the city is... a walk in the park.
legulere 6y ago
The internet is the fastest growing polluter.
- vkou 6y ago
  Not in absolute values.
getlawgdon 6y ago
Habit research disagrees completely with your contrarianism. It says that most long term changes are initiated with small changes that built a framework for more radical change over time.

jugjug 6y ago

This. Less flying, less buying, less meet, less consumerism, more local & seasonal food. No need to go full 100%: it would be enough if critical mass reaches a good-enough level.

adrianN 6y ago
No, it wouldn't be enough. This year has been the perfect experiment: Through massive, massive, restrictions in our normal life we managed to reduce CO2 emissions by what, 30%? Say we could do it even better if everyone became vegan and only rode bicycles and we reduce them by 70%. Awesome. That about triples the time we have until we need to reach net zero emissions. It probably also crashes the economy that's supposed to pay for the modernization and replacement of our whole energy infrastructure.
- bluntfang 6y ago
  You're right, but if enough people include thoughts like "what can I do personally to reduce my carbon footprint" and take action, then those conversions and actions end up making their way into the meeting rooms and board rooms.
  - wmf 6y ago
    That already happened to the extent that it's going to happen. Awareness has been fully raised and now it's time for systemic change.
    - bluntfang 6y ago
      It really hasn't. If it really had, then the meat industry would be tanking.
- orwin 6y ago
  >Through massive, massive, restrictions in our normal life we managed to reduce CO2 emissions by what, 30%? most likely 4-6% by the end of the year is europe goes back to the same lockdown as in march. To reduce that to needed levels by 2050 (to reach the 2°C by 2100 "best" scenario), you need -5% every year since last year. Its in the bag for 2020 at least, so that's great.

jackdh 6y ago

Can you expand on what you mean by fitness here?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pizza234 6y ago
Yes. Not many people enjoy physical activity; this is totally fine - everyone has their own taste. However, a certain amount of activity is required to maintain a minimal amount of fitness. Smart training can even take, in worst case, one hour a week. What I typically observe in people who refuse to do even the bare minimum of activity, is that they find a "non-activity", and pretend it works. What they're actually doing is instead to find something that takes virtually no effort while giving the illusion that they've absolved the duty. Very typical non-activities: walking and climbing stairs. (This is a bit complex suject of course, because if we take somebody who sits 24/7 on a chair/couch, of course walking is better than nothing - but I'm referring to the principle)
- nojvek 6y ago
  Walking an hour would require a decent amount of fitness. Not sure why you’re saying it’s a non-activity
  - pizza234 6y ago
    Well, unless one is severely overweight, walking is a very light activity - it actively employs very few muscles and has a very minimal cardiovascular impact. However, this is a bit odd in context. If one considers a population where 60%+ of the population has 30%+ of bodyfat percentage, then it's impossible to define what constitutes fitness - even one flight of stairs, in a sense, requires a decent amount of training. In at least northern Europe, hiking is relatively common for elderlies (people in their 60s) - and this amounts to hours of walking in rough terrains, so definitely, for a person who's not (considerably) overweight, and hour of walks in the city is... a walk in the park.

legulere 6y ago

The internet is the fastest growing polluter.

vkou 6y ago
Not in absolute values.

getlawgdon 6y ago

Habit research disagrees completely with your contrarianism. It says that most long term changes are initiated with small changes that built a framework for more radical change over time.