3 ms·
It’s a step. While our personal actions matter, unless I am in control of a major pollution source (energy, transportation, agriculture, ?) does it make more se
by meristohm 5y ago
It’s a step. While our personal actions matter, unless I am in control of a major pollution source (energy, transportation, agriculture, ?) does it make more sense to put effort into changing the rules for everyone?
- itake 5y agoI think the app missed a big one, but not having children would massively reduce your carbon imprint.
- armatav 5y agoExcept that’s a biological imperative.
- machello13 5y agoIf the earth's population suddenly dropped to 0, that would help global warming a lot too. Does that mean we should do it?
- over_bridge 5y agoNot having kids always struck me as a short sighted solution (not saying you are specifically advocating for it but there are those that do). One/two/three less people will have negligible impact but if the most environmentally aware people are the ones not having children, not passing on their values, the next generation will be missing their voices. Fixing this is a relay race through the generations, not a sprint for an individual or couple. If anything, the most environmentally aware of us should have more kids than average to help dilute the ranks of ignorant people and boost overall awareness. That would lead to higher chances of good leadership in 2060 and beyond.
- alecst 5y agoThat's how I feel too. During the peak of the US and European lockdowns, back in April of last year, daily emissions fell by like only 10-20%.[1] Tells quite a story about how much our personal actions matter. [1] You can just google it.