8 ms·

Respectfully, I’m getting fatigued from hearing about climate changes. Not because I don’t care, but because I feel powerless to do anything major about it. For

Respectfully, I’m getting fatigued from hearing about climate changes. Not because I don’t care, but because I feel powerless to do anything major about it. For all the recycling I’ve done, a single factory can undo in just a day. Being defeatist isn’t exactly productive, but hearing that calamities are happening on a daily basis doesn’t help much either. I really do think the only way this’ll get better is after some additional damage is seen and felt by policy makers. Until then, I’ll use my resources wisely and encourage others to do the same.

baby 5y ago
There’s the idea that any significant change starts with yourself. Ghandi and stuff. Yet, I can’t stop thinking that as humans our role is to multiply and exploit our habitat, and that trying to fight this is meaningless. In the end we’re doomed anyway, so is accelerating the inevitable that bad? Especially if it’s making the lives of people better right now?
liotier 5y ago
You feel powerless to do anything about climate change ? You feel your individual actions such as recycling are meaningless in the face of the incoming tsunami ? That is because they are. If you want meaningful, get into political action ! "For consumers in the industrialized world to signal virtue with their individual actions is irrelevant at best. Countries like Sweden that have had success in decarbonizing, didn’t reach their accomplishment with individual sacrifices, but by generating energy cleanly (with nuclear power instead of fossil fuel). In my opinion, the individual action that matters most is voting. Climate change is a problem governments will solve, not individuals. It is strange that people think the world’s most challenging problem can be solved by voluntary actions from billions of people — this is why we have representative governments" - https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/individual-actions-cant-solve-climate-change/ https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/individual-actions...
- dragontamer 5y ago
  It was extremely difficult getting my knowledgeable and smart sister to vaccinate for COVID19, an eminent disease that we both agreed was killing hundreds-of-thousands of Americans. Fortunately, I pushed her hard enough with a little bit of help from the Demon Slayer: Mugen Train movie (we will go to theaters if you vaccinate). Honestly: I don't know how I would have done it without that movie, lol. Now my sister's sister-in-law also is an anti-vaxxer. Lets call her "C". ------------ Frankly, my political capital is still 100% on COVID19. I don't have enough political capital left to spend on climate change. If I can't convince these people of the eminent dangers of COVID19, and the incredible relative safety of the vaccines... then climate change is hopeless. C isn't dumb. But she's part of a family of conservatives. "Conservatism" is part of their identity, and right now, that means that they want to believe that the virus will go away on its own, that masks are stupid, the vaccine is made by Bill Gates (wtf??) etc. etc. etc. And climate change is fake is part of that identity they hold. Pushing this part of their identity away from them is extremely difficult. Just pushing one concept onto them (ex: get the freaking vaccine) is hard enough.
  - briefcomment 5y ago
    You talk as if you're 100% certain about these things, which is obviously not possible.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      I'm 100% certain in the vaccine's effectiveness on the average American. Sure: Immunocompromised individuals may not be saved even with the vaccine (not enough B-cells or T-cells to fight off the disease even with the vaccine training them up). But its pretty much 100% proven at this point that the vaccines are 99.999%+ safe (all deaths due to vaccine are measured in the 10-in-a-million or smaller magnitude), while being 95% effective at preventing symptoms against the disease in question. Because the vaccine has been deployed to over 100-million Americans, I have evidence on how it works!! There's no doubt anymore in my mind. There wasn't any doubt in my mind in December 2020, and we've only got 7 more months of evidence: the virus is surging in unvaccinated areas (ex: India), while receding in vaccinated areas. Something like 100% of LA's COVID19 deaths were from unvaccinated indivuals, despite only having ~50% vaccination rates (so 50% / 50% split of vaccinated vs unvaccinated in that population, but 100% deaths coming from only the unvaccinated pool?) What more evidence do you want?
- vegetablepotpie 5y ago
  Although voting is important, it only makes a difference when there is a candidate or ballot initiative that takes climate seriously. Building a coalition that cares about climate is needed. Then politicians will see that the issue has a reliable voting block they can depend on for their careers.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> For all the recycling I’ve done, a single factory can undo in just a day. Tangential, but recycling is much less effective the reduced consumption. I think the problem with policy makers not moving on this front is a reflection of people not doing so. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to make people even believe in something that would require them to sacrifice their lifestyle, let alone actually commit to doing something about it. To that end, the continued talk about climate change is necessary to hammer into our thick skulls that yes indeed this is a real problem and we really should do something about it and pressure our policy makers to make it a priority even if it means we can't have the same luxurious lifestyle we're accustomed to.
- JohnWhigham 5y ago
  I think most consumer-facing plastics need to go. They're one of the major catalysts, if not the catalyst for our hyperconsumerist habits. Go back to glass bottles for things. Give subsidies to companies that use glass for inventory loss and such. Bring back the milkman who refills your empty jugs.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >Go back to glass bottles for things. Give subsidies to companies that use glass for inventory loss and such. Bring back the milkman who refills your empty jugs. Shouldn't we tax the externalities of plastic and let the market decide whether it's worth it? In your example of using glass bottles: sure it gets rid of plastic, but what about the costs of glass? eg. increased weight or energy/water needed to clean them. As for bringing back the milkman, how is driving a truck door to door delivering exclusively milk more efficient than picking it up on your way to the grocery store?
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      They already have filtered water refill stations in some grocery stores, they could theoretically do the same for milk (and other products) without bringing back delivery people.
    - 5y ago
35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
> For all the recycling I’ve done, a single factory can undo in just a day. Just remember: those same factories are operated by companies that have spent millions over decades to convince people that individual solutions exist to a systemic problem. If you feel powerless, try looking for systemic opportunities to drive change.
- marssaxman 5y ago
  > If you feel powerless, try looking for systemic opportunities to drive change. After you spend several years on that, you will find an even deeper, more fundamental sense of powerlessness!
philips 5y ago
This Podcast episode[1] and related show notes is helpful in breaking down individual actions vs systemic changes that you can support. Personally I have gone through several bouts of feeling hopeless about the situation but sustained learning about solutions and the work others are doing has been helpful. Also, talking to family and friends about solutions helps too. [1] https://gimletmedia.com/shows/howtosaveaplanet/xjh53gn/is-your-carbon-footprint-bs https://gimletmedia.com/shows/howtosaveaplanet/xjh53gn/is-yo...
Wowfunhappy 5y ago
I sympathize with and share your exhaustion, but I force myself to pay attention to these stories. They remind me why Climate Change is always my #1 priority when voting in elections, and when thinking about the world writ large. There was an editorial in The Atlantic a couple of years ago—which I now can’t seem to find—titled something like “We should be covering climate change like it’s the only story that matters”. The body of the piece was very short, but can be summed up as “because in terms of relative importance, it is the only story that matters. But we won’t do it.” But we should. But we need to.
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  Of course, if one does want to cover it like it's the only story that matters, one should really seriously take a look at how to best present that — because there are real possibilities that a naive approach might very well fail you, and get the coverage ignored.
- prox 5y ago
  Making money comes first in this world, and only then comes the realization if our kids or grandkids still have a habitable world. Guess up until now it’s an abstraction people couldn’t imagine. Despite years of warning. Recently been thinking we should reform old style political parties. Instead we get to directly vote for ideological topics which we can vote on, and politicians/parties who adhere to them. So instead of parties we vote for ideas directly. Just an idea that needs a lot more work :)
  - Fauntleroy 5y ago
    You're not alone in that thought, but the first step is dismantling the party system. In the United States that would either require extreme campaign finance reform and the elimination of First-Past-The-Post voting systems. Or a violent revolution. Either way it's not looking likely...
    - iNane9000 5y ago
      The parties can be improved without dismantling. In fact, that’s exactly what must happen and indeed the fate of our democracy depends upon it happening.
mtrn 5y ago
I do not own a car, I do not fly, I buy clothes used or new just once a year. My newest smartphone I bought five years ago (and I just bought a new battery for $10, so I can use it for five more years). My utility company stats says my energy consumption is overall very low. I eat meat once a month. I try to own as few things as possible. I try to write and deploy code in energy efficient languages (Go, Rust, C, ...) [1]. I self host some services on my arm board that consumes 0.79W when idle. I do not feel, that it makes a large dent, but I feel that I'm way ahead what the average person does in order to reduce their environmental footprint. Also, I do not feel I'm cutting myself short and I still depend on many of the niceties of modern civilization - but, I'd also be happier, if my footprint would be even lower. [1] https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/sleFinal.pdf https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/sle...
- lamontcg 5y ago
  You're perpetuating the idea though that we need to live like Ascetics in order to solve climate change. It'd be thousands of times better to get one coal fired plant turned off in place of renewables.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mtrn 5y ago
    Yes and no. I feel that not doing certain things is a very simple thing to "do" things - and I appreciate simplicity. For example, I would probably prefer getting rid of half of the cars and trying to find ways so that people do not need to move that much, if they do not want to (for example making all possibly remote remote work actually remote) - as opposed to making all cars electric.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 5y ago
  I am not saying anything negative about your lifestyle and I make similar choices. But, the perception is you need to be that extreme when the reality is different. People really don’t need to suffer to make a difference, which is critical as most people aren’t willing to suffer if they can avoid it. For example rather than turning the heat down, buying a solar hot water heater let’s you save money, take long hot showers, and be toasty in the winter while also being more environmentally friendly. Carbon credits are poor policy vs carbon taxes for a host of reasons. However, if you really want to feel better about your personal choices effective leverage is available. At the same time a huge number of what amounts to scams are also out there. PS: Of course lowering consumption has other environmental benefits
bioinformatics 5y ago
Best thing you can do is to not produce any pollution whatsoever. It’s the easiest and most ecological way to have 0 impact on Nature. Make a list of all the things that harm Earth that you do daily (hint: using a computer and the internet is one) and just eliminate from your life. You will be better, we are going to be better and thw world will thank you
- nathanaldensr 5y ago
  The only way to accomplish what you call the "best way" is for everyone to die.
  - Rochus 5y ago
    If you have dental fillings or pacemakers, even that is still polluting.
kylehotchkiss 5y ago
For me, it's knowing that extensive lifestyle changes and even major policy changes in the western world will hardly make a dent as nations with less means continue to grow and increase their carbon footprint. (Yes, I understand per-person consumption in Western countries is much higher) I can't blame the people in those countries for not being able to think or plan long term while trying to make it day by day. Humanity has made tremendous strides as far as reducing extreme poverty between WWII and up until Covid hit. Maybe trying to look at the worlds issues more holistically and not with a laser focus on climate change could lead to building more countries that have the means to make the big changes the rest of the world needs to make.
- pastage 5y ago
  That's only a problem in long term, for now every bit to lower the consumption will help. Every trick you can find that makes good life less a burden for the planet will help minimizing that long term problem.
Pokepokalypse 5y ago
In the last 10 years, I have installed solar on 3 houses. I feel like that did more to help this problem than everything else I've ever done. Furthermore: insisting my job remain remote has also been a great help. No more commute. It's still not enough.
- CubsFan1060 5y ago
  It's interesting that your two actions you talk about also have significant benefits for yourself. I think real change is going to require a lot of sacrifice, and won't be a win-win for everyone.
JKCalhoun 5y ago
It sounds like these daily climate change disaster stories better serve those policy makers than they do you. To that end, yes, please keep reporting on them.
RandomLensman 5y ago
What scares me is that most marquee policies seem to focus pretty much exclusively on avoiding and limiting climate change but not on helping people to cope. We might need programs for people to get cooling and not just better insulation, for example. In some places there is tendency to still mandate homes to be heat traps to save energy, which could also lead to really bad outcomes in very hot conditions.
- maxsilver 5y ago
  > In some places there is tendency to still mandate homes to be heat traps to save energy, which could also lead to really bad outcomes in very hot conditions. Agree, but I mean, that's probably good too though. If you don't insulate homes well, they waste more energy (and emit more CO2) on all the days they aren't under an insane heat wave. And if you are Air Conditioning a house, that same insulation helps keep the place cool. Even places that "never get cold" and therefore "don't need it", should still be reasonably well insulated both ways anyway. See the Texas Cold Snap earlier this year, and all the damage that caused (even though that weather would cause zero issues in Michigan). See the recent extreme heat wave in Seattle + Portland tearing apart roads and such (even though that weather would cause zero issues in Arizona). Homes probably need both to be well built. They need to be able to heat trap and to quickly/efficiently cool + ventilate. And in general, the concept of "building to match local climate" is probably going to have to be a relic of the past. There is starting to be no such thing as predictable local climates anymore. If you want something to last, it's going to have to be built as if it could get anyone's weather at a moments notice.
matsemann 5y ago
> For all the recycling I’ve done, a single factory can undo in just a day That's why it has to be solved by going political. Capitalism wont make companies care unless they are forced to pay for their pollution with emission taxes or whatever. And in the same vein, a few persons driving a bit less wont matter. Instead ICE vehicles could have been basically forbidden. Of course, all this comes at a cost of somewhat limiting people's "freedom", which makes it so hard to get support for. So a better way is policies that makes it the "rational choice" to do the right thing. Like building less roads and making stuff more walkable or reachable by public transit. That will have a far greater effect than someone voluntarily giving up their car with the status quo.
partiallypro 5y ago
Also the US, Germany etc could all cut their carbon emissions drastically and it wouldn't even matter because China and India dwarf any small change by the West. Not only are you powerless, so are most countries, even the most powerful ones. What is tiresome is that the US, etc is supposed to do something drastic which would barely have any effect while China builds new coal plants constantly. They run over 50% of all plants globally. https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissions-china-goes-on-a-coal-spree https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissi...
- generj 5y ago
  Doesn’t the poor farmer in China deserve electricity though? US + EU got to use coal (and still do) for 150 years before we even started discussing eliminating its use. If the West isn’t going to let the world use coal or other carbon heavy solutions, they need to pay the cost differences. It isn’t fair to impose poverty on everyone else after reaping the benefits of carbon emissions. We will never get global buy-in for the needed emission cuts if there is no recognition of this.
  - partiallypro 5y ago
    You really think the US, etc should have to pay for the second largest economy (by a huge margin) in the world to go green? Your argument doesn't even really hold water. Coal etc was used because it had no real alternative at the time, now there is an alternative.
    - generj 5y ago
      China isn’t the best example of my point. I’m talking about the developing world broadly - we should absolutely foot some of the bill for other countries to go green or pay for geoengineering so they have a longer timeframe to do so. Coal is still cheap and can be much easier to operate than alternatives - unless someone helps make the alternatives easier to install and operate. How much of China’s energy goes towards producing goods for the West? If the coal is burned to cheaply provide goods for us, aren’t we at least partially responsible for that? Criticizing China while we have higher CO2 emissions per capita AND off source much of our emissions to them isn’t a convincing argument as evidenced by the fact that they are barely paying lip service to emission reductions. Again, we need to make sure we have global buy-in. The plan needs to offer benefits to small villages throughout the world rather than denying the fruits of electrification and industry to them.
vegetablepotpie 5y ago
The dust bowl wasn’t addressed until the dust made it to Washington [1]. I suspect we’re not going to see real climate change mitigation in the US until Capitol Hill is flooded with sea water (elevation: 79ft). Although changes to individual actions are needed to solve the climate crisis, the impact of individual actions will be minimal, and big policy changes are needed to make meaningful impacts. The things that are actually working to produce the small policy changes we have seen so far, such as the green new deal, are protest movements like Extinction Rebellion and the Sunrise Movement [2]. I am seriously entertaining the idea of devoting much of my time to influencing policy. I believe that when it’s not just students and young people being arrested at protests but mainstream professionals, we may see some more serious changes. But I’m not terribly hopeful either. [1] http://mallhistory.org/items/show/274 http://mallhistory.org/items/show/274 [2] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-to-save-a-planet/id1525955817?i=1000489350821 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-to-save-a-planet/i...
- ocschwar 5y ago
  The parking facilities around the capitol will be hit first, and since congressmen have pretty fancy cars, I expect the saltwater damage will change some minds. And I'm not trying to be glib or cynical. My congressman, now Senator, Ed Markey, made climate change his priority after floods damaged the basement of the building with his district office in Medford MA
abeppu 5y ago
> Being defeatist isn’t exactly productive, > the only way this’ll get better is after some additional damage is seen and felt by policy makers I do sometimes think the way to shock people into actual change is to switch from defeatist rhetoric to unhinged triumphalism: "For decades our war against Future Earth has been stunningly successful, and we're approaching the completion of a total victory! Yes, some might argue that our tactics have been unethical, and that our willingness to cause so many civilian casualties has been irresponsible. And perhaps, as time drags us across the front, as we encounter friendly (wild)fire, we may reconsider the unique harms of our arsenal. But as you encounter the destruction we have worked so hard to bring about, if ever your heart wavers, remember! Future Earth has always been fated to stand on the grave of Past Earth. And if Past Earth must die, why should we leave behind resources for others to prosper from our passing? Our victory may not be just, but it is Victory!" The issue isn't so much that there's nothing we can do. The issue is that we've been highly effective at pushing in the wrong direction. We've allowed ourselves to frame our impacts as almost unavoidable accidents, rather than as acts of violence and destruction. Yes, policy makers must act, but perhaps we should be talking about tribunals to consider crimes against humanity, and international legal mechanisms to address collective guilt, rather than patting politicians on the head when they announce that eventually we'll stop selling ICE cars.
Rochus 5y ago
Here is a good publication about the effectiveness of individual measures; there are indeed much more effective individual actions than recycling: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541.
lamontcg 5y ago
You can refuse to work anywhere that doesn't let you work from home fulltime. Commuting is killing the planet and killing employees due to stress and accidents. And a lot of employees could move somewhere a bit cheaper which would help to reduce mortgages and rents and make cities more livable.
gremlinsinc 5y ago
So much this.... but I still can't stop doom scrolling...it's at the just grab popcorn phase... There's no point anymore to conservation from a consumer perspective, really. In utah - consumer water use is like 2% of ALL water use, they run multitudes of ads saying conserve water...but do they regulate the 98%'ers in big industry, mining, retail, etc? No. Not at all. It's exhausting to watch them do nothing and complain about our 'scraps' of water they give us...

baby 5y ago

There’s the idea that any significant change starts with yourself. Ghandi and stuff. Yet, I can’t stop thinking that as humans our role is to multiply and exploit our habitat, and that trying to fight this is meaningless. In the end we’re doomed anyway, so is accelerating the inevitable that bad? Especially if it’s making the lives of people better right now?

liotier 5y ago

You feel powerless to do anything about climate change ? You feel your individual actions such as recycling are meaningless in the face of the incoming tsunami ? That is because they are. If you want meaningful, get into political action ! "For consumers in the industrialized world to signal virtue with their individual actions is irrelevant at best. Countries like Sweden that have had success in decarbonizing, didn’t reach their accomplishment with individual sacrifices, but by generating energy cleanly (with nuclear power instead of fossil fuel). In my opinion, the individual action that matters most is voting. Climate change is a problem governments will solve, not individuals. It is strange that people think the world’s most challenging problem can be solved by voluntary actions from billions of people — this is why we have representative governments" - https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/individual-actions-cant-solve-climate-change/ https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/individual-actions...

dragontamer 5y ago
It was extremely difficult getting my knowledgeable and smart sister to vaccinate for COVID19, an eminent disease that we both agreed was killing hundreds-of-thousands of Americans. Fortunately, I pushed her hard enough with a little bit of help from the Demon Slayer: Mugen Train movie (we will go to theaters if you vaccinate). Honestly: I don't know how I would have done it without that movie, lol. Now my sister's sister-in-law also is an anti-vaxxer. Lets call her "C". ------------ Frankly, my political capital is still 100% on COVID19. I don't have enough political capital left to spend on climate change. If I can't convince these people of the eminent dangers of COVID19, and the incredible relative safety of the vaccines... then climate change is hopeless. C isn't dumb. But she's part of a family of conservatives. "Conservatism" is part of their identity, and right now, that means that they want to believe that the virus will go away on its own, that masks are stupid, the vaccine is made by Bill Gates (wtf??) etc. etc. etc. And climate change is fake is part of that identity they hold. Pushing this part of their identity away from them is extremely difficult. Just pushing one concept onto them (ex: get the freaking vaccine) is hard enough.
- briefcomment 5y ago
  You talk as if you're 100% certain about these things, which is obviously not possible.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    I'm 100% certain in the vaccine's effectiveness on the average American. Sure: Immunocompromised individuals may not be saved even with the vaccine (not enough B-cells or T-cells to fight off the disease even with the vaccine training them up). But its pretty much 100% proven at this point that the vaccines are 99.999%+ safe (all deaths due to vaccine are measured in the 10-in-a-million or smaller magnitude), while being 95% effective at preventing symptoms against the disease in question. Because the vaccine has been deployed to over 100-million Americans, I have evidence on how it works!! There's no doubt anymore in my mind. There wasn't any doubt in my mind in December 2020, and we've only got 7 more months of evidence: the virus is surging in unvaccinated areas (ex: India), while receding in vaccinated areas. Something like 100% of LA's COVID19 deaths were from unvaccinated indivuals, despite only having ~50% vaccination rates (so 50% / 50% split of vaccinated vs unvaccinated in that population, but 100% deaths coming from only the unvaccinated pool?) What more evidence do you want?
vegetablepotpie 5y ago
Although voting is important, it only makes a difference when there is a candidate or ballot initiative that takes climate seriously. Building a coalition that cares about climate is needed. Then politicians will see that the issue has a reliable voting block they can depend on for their careers.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

> For all the recycling I’ve done, a single factory can undo in just a day. Tangential, but recycling is much less effective the reduced consumption. I think the problem with policy makers not moving on this front is a reflection of people not doing so. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to make people even believe in something that would require them to sacrifice their lifestyle, let alone actually commit to doing something about it. To that end, the continued talk about climate change is necessary to hammer into our thick skulls that yes indeed this is a real problem and we really should do something about it and pressure our policy makers to make it a priority even if it means we can't have the same luxurious lifestyle we're accustomed to.

JohnWhigham 5y ago
I think most consumer-facing plastics need to go. They're one of the major catalysts, if not the catalyst for our hyperconsumerist habits. Go back to glass bottles for things. Give subsidies to companies that use glass for inventory loss and such. Bring back the milkman who refills your empty jugs.
- gruez 5y ago
  >Go back to glass bottles for things. Give subsidies to companies that use glass for inventory loss and such. Bring back the milkman who refills your empty jugs. Shouldn't we tax the externalities of plastic and let the market decide whether it's worth it? In your example of using glass bottles: sure it gets rid of plastic, but what about the costs of glass? eg. increased weight or energy/water needed to clean them. As for bringing back the milkman, how is driving a truck door to door delivering exclusively milk more efficient than picking it up on your way to the grocery store?
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    They already have filtered water refill stations in some grocery stores, they could theoretically do the same for milk (and other products) without bringing back delivery people.
  - 5y ago

35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago

> For all the recycling I’ve done, a single factory can undo in just a day. Just remember: those same factories are operated by companies that have spent millions over decades to convince people that individual solutions exist to a systemic problem. If you feel powerless, try looking for systemic opportunities to drive change.

marssaxman 5y ago
> If you feel powerless, try looking for systemic opportunities to drive change. After you spend several years on that, you will find an even deeper, more fundamental sense of powerlessness!

philips 5y ago

This Podcast episode[1] and related show notes is helpful in breaking down individual actions vs systemic changes that you can support. Personally I have gone through several bouts of feeling hopeless about the situation but sustained learning about solutions and the work others are doing has been helpful. Also, talking to family and friends about solutions helps too. [1] https://gimletmedia.com/shows/howtosaveaplanet/xjh53gn/is-your-carbon-footprint-bs https://gimletmedia.com/shows/howtosaveaplanet/xjh53gn/is-yo...

Wowfunhappy 5y ago

I sympathize with and share your exhaustion, but I force myself to pay attention to these stories. They remind me why Climate Change is always my #1 priority when voting in elections, and when thinking about the world writ large. There was an editorial in The Atlantic a couple of years ago—which I now can’t seem to find—titled something like “We should be covering climate change like it’s the only story that matters”. The body of the piece was very short, but can be summed up as “because in terms of relative importance, it is the only story that matters. But we won’t do it.” But we should. But we need to.

fennecfoxen 5y ago
Of course, if one does want to cover it like it's the only story that matters, one should really seriously take a look at how to best present that — because there are real possibilities that a naive approach might very well fail you, and get the coverage ignored.
prox 5y ago
Making money comes first in this world, and only then comes the realization if our kids or grandkids still have a habitable world. Guess up until now it’s an abstraction people couldn’t imagine. Despite years of warning. Recently been thinking we should reform old style political parties. Instead we get to directly vote for ideological topics which we can vote on, and politicians/parties who adhere to them. So instead of parties we vote for ideas directly. Just an idea that needs a lot more work :)
- Fauntleroy 5y ago
  You're not alone in that thought, but the first step is dismantling the party system. In the United States that would either require extreme campaign finance reform and the elimination of First-Past-The-Post voting systems. Or a violent revolution. Either way it's not looking likely...
  - iNane9000 5y ago
    The parties can be improved without dismantling. In fact, that’s exactly what must happen and indeed the fate of our democracy depends upon it happening.

mtrn 5y ago

I do not own a car, I do not fly, I buy clothes used or new just once a year. My newest smartphone I bought five years ago (and I just bought a new battery for $10, so I can use it for five more years). My utility company stats says my energy consumption is overall very low. I eat meat once a month. I try to own as few things as possible. I try to write and deploy code in energy efficient languages (Go, Rust, C, ...) [1]. I self host some services on my arm board that consumes 0.79W when idle. I do not feel, that it makes a large dent, but I feel that I'm way ahead what the average person does in order to reduce their environmental footprint. Also, I do not feel I'm cutting myself short and I still depend on many of the niceties of modern civilization - but, I'd also be happier, if my footprint would be even lower. [1] https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/sleFinal.pdf https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/sle...

lamontcg 5y ago
You're perpetuating the idea though that we need to live like Ascetics in order to solve climate change. It'd be thousands of times better to get one coal fired plant turned off in place of renewables.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mtrn 5y ago
  Yes and no. I feel that not doing certain things is a very simple thing to "do" things - and I appreciate simplicity. For example, I would probably prefer getting rid of half of the cars and trying to find ways so that people do not need to move that much, if they do not want to (for example making all possibly remote remote work actually remote) - as opposed to making all cars electric.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Retric 5y ago
I am not saying anything negative about your lifestyle and I make similar choices. But, the perception is you need to be that extreme when the reality is different. People really don’t need to suffer to make a difference, which is critical as most people aren’t willing to suffer if they can avoid it. For example rather than turning the heat down, buying a solar hot water heater let’s you save money, take long hot showers, and be toasty in the winter while also being more environmentally friendly. Carbon credits are poor policy vs carbon taxes for a host of reasons. However, if you really want to feel better about your personal choices effective leverage is available. At the same time a huge number of what amounts to scams are also out there. PS: Of course lowering consumption has other environmental benefits

bioinformatics 5y ago

Best thing you can do is to not produce any pollution whatsoever. It’s the easiest and most ecological way to have 0 impact on Nature. Make a list of all the things that harm Earth that you do daily (hint: using a computer and the internet is one) and just eliminate from your life. You will be better, we are going to be better and thw world will thank you

nathanaldensr 5y ago
The only way to accomplish what you call the "best way" is for everyone to die.
- Rochus 5y ago
  If you have dental fillings or pacemakers, even that is still polluting.

kylehotchkiss 5y ago

For me, it's knowing that extensive lifestyle changes and even major policy changes in the western world will hardly make a dent as nations with less means continue to grow and increase their carbon footprint. (Yes, I understand per-person consumption in Western countries is much higher) I can't blame the people in those countries for not being able to think or plan long term while trying to make it day by day. Humanity has made tremendous strides as far as reducing extreme poverty between WWII and up until Covid hit. Maybe trying to look at the worlds issues more holistically and not with a laser focus on climate change could lead to building more countries that have the means to make the big changes the rest of the world needs to make.

pastage 5y ago
That's only a problem in long term, for now every bit to lower the consumption will help. Every trick you can find that makes good life less a burden for the planet will help minimizing that long term problem.

Pokepokalypse 5y ago

In the last 10 years, I have installed solar on 3 houses. I feel like that did more to help this problem than everything else I've ever done. Furthermore: insisting my job remain remote has also been a great help. No more commute. It's still not enough.

CubsFan1060 5y ago
It's interesting that your two actions you talk about also have significant benefits for yourself. I think real change is going to require a lot of sacrifice, and won't be a win-win for everyone.

JKCalhoun 5y ago

It sounds like these daily climate change disaster stories better serve those policy makers than they do you. To that end, yes, please keep reporting on them.

RandomLensman 5y ago

What scares me is that most marquee policies seem to focus pretty much exclusively on avoiding and limiting climate change but not on helping people to cope. We might need programs for people to get cooling and not just better insulation, for example. In some places there is tendency to still mandate homes to be heat traps to save energy, which could also lead to really bad outcomes in very hot conditions.

maxsilver 5y ago
> In some places there is tendency to still mandate homes to be heat traps to save energy, which could also lead to really bad outcomes in very hot conditions. Agree, but I mean, that's probably good too though. If you don't insulate homes well, they waste more energy (and emit more CO2) on all the days they aren't under an insane heat wave. And if you are Air Conditioning a house, that same insulation helps keep the place cool. Even places that "never get cold" and therefore "don't need it", should still be reasonably well insulated both ways anyway. See the Texas Cold Snap earlier this year, and all the damage that caused (even though that weather would cause zero issues in Michigan). See the recent extreme heat wave in Seattle + Portland tearing apart roads and such (even though that weather would cause zero issues in Arizona). Homes probably need both to be well built. They need to be able to heat trap and to quickly/efficiently cool + ventilate. And in general, the concept of "building to match local climate" is probably going to have to be a relic of the past. There is starting to be no such thing as predictable local climates anymore. If you want something to last, it's going to have to be built as if it could get anyone's weather at a moments notice.

matsemann 5y ago

> For all the recycling I’ve done, a single factory can undo in just a day That's why it has to be solved by going political. Capitalism wont make companies care unless they are forced to pay for their pollution with emission taxes or whatever. And in the same vein, a few persons driving a bit less wont matter. Instead ICE vehicles could have been basically forbidden. Of course, all this comes at a cost of somewhat limiting people's "freedom", which makes it so hard to get support for. So a better way is policies that makes it the "rational choice" to do the right thing. Like building less roads and making stuff more walkable or reachable by public transit. That will have a far greater effect than someone voluntarily giving up their car with the status quo.

partiallypro 5y ago

Also the US, Germany etc could all cut their carbon emissions drastically and it wouldn't even matter because China and India dwarf any small change by the West. Not only are you powerless, so are most countries, even the most powerful ones. What is tiresome is that the US, etc is supposed to do something drastic which would barely have any effect while China builds new coal plants constantly. They run over 50% of all plants globally. https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissions-china-goes-on-a-coal-spree https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissi...

generj 5y ago
Doesn’t the poor farmer in China deserve electricity though? US + EU got to use coal (and still do) for 150 years before we even started discussing eliminating its use. If the West isn’t going to let the world use coal or other carbon heavy solutions, they need to pay the cost differences. It isn’t fair to impose poverty on everyone else after reaping the benefits of carbon emissions. We will never get global buy-in for the needed emission cuts if there is no recognition of this.
- partiallypro 5y ago
  You really think the US, etc should have to pay for the second largest economy (by a huge margin) in the world to go green? Your argument doesn't even really hold water. Coal etc was used because it had no real alternative at the time, now there is an alternative.
  - generj 5y ago
    China isn’t the best example of my point. I’m talking about the developing world broadly - we should absolutely foot some of the bill for other countries to go green or pay for geoengineering so they have a longer timeframe to do so. Coal is still cheap and can be much easier to operate than alternatives - unless someone helps make the alternatives easier to install and operate. How much of China’s energy goes towards producing goods for the West? If the coal is burned to cheaply provide goods for us, aren’t we at least partially responsible for that? Criticizing China while we have higher CO2 emissions per capita AND off source much of our emissions to them isn’t a convincing argument as evidenced by the fact that they are barely paying lip service to emission reductions. Again, we need to make sure we have global buy-in. The plan needs to offer benefits to small villages throughout the world rather than denying the fruits of electrification and industry to them.

vegetablepotpie 5y ago

The dust bowl wasn’t addressed until the dust made it to Washington [1]. I suspect we’re not going to see real climate change mitigation in the US until Capitol Hill is flooded with sea water (elevation: 79ft). Although changes to individual actions are needed to solve the climate crisis, the impact of individual actions will be minimal, and big policy changes are needed to make meaningful impacts. The things that are actually working to produce the small policy changes we have seen so far, such as the green new deal, are protest movements like Extinction Rebellion and the Sunrise Movement [2]. I am seriously entertaining the idea of devoting much of my time to influencing policy. I believe that when it’s not just students and young people being arrested at protests but mainstream professionals, we may see some more serious changes. But I’m not terribly hopeful either. [1] http://mallhistory.org/items/show/274 http://mallhistory.org/items/show/274 [2] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-to-save-a-planet/id1525955817?i=1000489350821 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-to-save-a-planet/i...

ocschwar 5y ago
The parking facilities around the capitol will be hit first, and since congressmen have pretty fancy cars, I expect the saltwater damage will change some minds. And I'm not trying to be glib or cynical. My congressman, now Senator, Ed Markey, made climate change his priority after floods damaged the basement of the building with his district office in Medford MA

abeppu 5y ago

> Being defeatist isn’t exactly productive, > the only way this’ll get better is after some additional damage is seen and felt by policy makers I do sometimes think the way to shock people into actual change is to switch from defeatist rhetoric to unhinged triumphalism: "For decades our war against Future Earth has been stunningly successful, and we're approaching the completion of a total victory! Yes, some might argue that our tactics have been unethical, and that our willingness to cause so many civilian casualties has been irresponsible. And perhaps, as time drags us across the front, as we encounter friendly (wild)fire, we may reconsider the unique harms of our arsenal. But as you encounter the destruction we have worked so hard to bring about, if ever your heart wavers, remember! Future Earth has always been fated to stand on the grave of Past Earth. And if Past Earth must die, why should we leave behind resources for others to prosper from our passing? Our victory may not be just, but it is Victory!" The issue isn't so much that there's nothing we can do. The issue is that we've been highly effective at pushing in the wrong direction. We've allowed ourselves to frame our impacts as almost unavoidable accidents, rather than as acts of violence and destruction. Yes, policy makers must act, but perhaps we should be talking about tribunals to consider crimes against humanity, and international legal mechanisms to address collective guilt, rather than patting politicians on the head when they announce that eventually we'll stop selling ICE cars.

Rochus 5y ago

Here is a good publication about the effectiveness of individual measures; there are indeed much more effective individual actions than recycling: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541.

lamontcg 5y ago

You can refuse to work anywhere that doesn't let you work from home fulltime. Commuting is killing the planet and killing employees due to stress and accidents. And a lot of employees could move somewhere a bit cheaper which would help to reduce mortgages and rents and make cities more livable.

gremlinsinc 5y ago

So much this.... but I still can't stop doom scrolling...it's at the just grab popcorn phase... There's no point anymore to conservation from a consumer perspective, really. In utah - consumer water use is like 2% of ALL water use, they run multitudes of ads saying conserve water...but do they regulate the 98%'ers in big industry, mining, retail, etc? No. Not at all. It's exhausting to watch them do nothing and complain about our 'scraps' of water they give us...