5 ms·

As I become aware of how my decisions affect other people, I do my best to minimize what I can. The four most impactful lifestyle choices you can make to reduc

As I become aware of how my decisions affect other people, I do my best to minimize what I can. The four most impactful lifestyle choices you can make to reduce your effect on climate [1] are: * have fewer children * live car-free * become vegetarian * avoid transatlantic air travel I now live car-free and vegan. I've no kids, yet (maybe never). I live in California but I'm from Ireland - I'll probably take a flight home soon. So no, I don't totally avoid everything that can cause harm, but at least I try. What is ludicrous is using a car for journeys under ten miles. It is abhorrently selfish to do so knowing that your pollution contributes to sickness in people. People should maybe take a pay cut, or live in a smaller home, closer to where they work. But instead they trade the health of others for their own standard of living. ("some of you may die, but that's a price I'm willing to pay") > Most drivers cannot practically manage walking/biking or public transit as their sole means of travel. In a large part because of cars. Cars beget cars. Car companies conspired to shut down public transit. Now people in those areas need a car. Then it's held as a example of why we need cars. Urban sprawl was enabled by cars. Now people need cars to get to those areas. It's very difficult to find a problem that cars solve that wasn't itself caused by cars. What is ludicrous is to call how I actually live ludicrous. I enjoy a high standard of living. Without a car. [1] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541

rank0 5y ago
So in your mind, despite being in the top 1 percentile of historic carbon output, you have the moral high ground for not owning a vehicle? Yeah those impoverished parents sure are pieces of shit for driving thier kids to school and commuting between multiple underpaid jobs. They should just take a pay cut and quadruple their commute time for the earth! Let me paint it another way: A vegan, car free, childless, software engineer in a big city has the carbon output of 100 Ugandan farmers. Why do you get to use electronics, power, internet, and take occasional trips to Iceland while everyone else is morally bankrupt for having a vehicle?
- Osmium 5y ago
  The person you're responding to is asking themselves questions about the decisions they're making, the impact of those decisions, and if they can make better decisions to reduce the harm they might be causing. Is this so bad?
  - rank0 5y ago
    Yes. It completely misrepresents the actual complexity of the problem. Instead of discussing effective solutions like political activity the climate change debate gets dumbed down to reusable cotton bags and paper straws. The purpose here is probably not to be a “better person” but to inflate their ego while belittling others. What does it accomplish to shame drivers while simultaneously using AC and running water in the California desert?
    - BrianHenryIE 5y ago
      I replied to a comment about the detrimental effects of air pollution with how I try not to be part of the problem. If it were conversation about activism, I can talk about my engagement with the city council and contributions to relevant charities. If this were a conversation about energy use in California I could talk about the premium I pay on my electricity so it is from renewable sources. https://www.smud.org/en/Going-Green/Get-Green-Energy/Residential https://www.smud.org/en/Going-Green/Get-Green-Energy/Residen... Reducing car usage is, in that journal article I referenced, the number 2 thing you can do to reduce your climate impact. I have not misrepresented anything. You’re right about the water. That’s something I’m still learning about.
    - mahogany 5y ago
      > Yes. It completely misrepresents the actual complexity of the problem. Instead of discussing effective solutions like political activity the climate change debate gets dumbed down to reusable cotton bags and paper straws. I've encountered this sentiment many times here. It's a bit baffling to me, to be honest. Yes, we all know that personal actions are small compared to massive structural changes. But why exactly do you think that it's one or the other? I'd wager that the majority of politically active people trying to change things at a high level are also changing smaller things in their day-to-day life, because it's an issue that they are passionate about. In my opinion, the attitude that you promote ("why do the little actions when only the big ones matter") is more likely to cause inaction, and the people I've met who espouse that viewpoint say a lot and do nothing at all.
Osmium 5y ago
I agree, for what it's worth. You're not alone with this. Of course, there are many individual life circumstances that mean a car is an absolute necessity, but for many people it's a choice, whether they acknowledge they've made that choice or not. This is especially true for people who are more affluent.
nanagojo 5y ago
> I've no kids, yet (maybe never). IMO this is short term thinking. What happens to the planet when you are gone? If all the like minded individuals who cared about the climate opt to not have kids, then those who inherit the earth will keep polluting.
- euroderf 5y ago
  "The Marching Morons", Cyril M. Kornbluth
- goodpoint 5y ago
  Polluting is not some habit that people inherit genetically from their parents.
Xplune13 5y ago
All these things are great except one point in my opinion. I never understood "I won't have any children so I can minimize the effect on the climate". How about "I will have 2 children at max and teach them what I've learned so far but at younger stage? so that they will act responsibly in the future regarding climate issues while living and maybe doing things to lessen the climate change effects in the future?". In the end, it is your choice with what you want to do. Things you're doing to contribute less like being car-free etc. are good, but I really find this extreme stance of "not having children for climate change" short-sighted. Edit: typo
throwaway8689 5y ago
Since you refer to Ireland as home I'm reminded of a conversation with a colleague where we were talking about pollution. I suggested flying be restricted to migrants who needed to visit family. My colleague thought that was a great idea. Then I continued that migration should be restricted since it creates demand for air travel. Colleague liked that far less. Disclosure: my spouse is a migrant and we both fly to visit.

rank0 5y ago

So in your mind, despite being in the top 1 percentile of historic carbon output, you have the moral high ground for not owning a vehicle? Yeah those impoverished parents sure are pieces of shit for driving thier kids to school and commuting between multiple underpaid jobs. They should just take a pay cut and quadruple their commute time for the earth! Let me paint it another way: A vegan, car free, childless, software engineer in a big city has the carbon output of 100 Ugandan farmers. Why do you get to use electronics, power, internet, and take occasional trips to Iceland while everyone else is morally bankrupt for having a vehicle?

Osmium 5y ago
The person you're responding to is asking themselves questions about the decisions they're making, the impact of those decisions, and if they can make better decisions to reduce the harm they might be causing. Is this so bad?
- rank0 5y ago
  Yes. It completely misrepresents the actual complexity of the problem. Instead of discussing effective solutions like political activity the climate change debate gets dumbed down to reusable cotton bags and paper straws. The purpose here is probably not to be a “better person” but to inflate their ego while belittling others. What does it accomplish to shame drivers while simultaneously using AC and running water in the California desert?
  - BrianHenryIE 5y ago
    I replied to a comment about the detrimental effects of air pollution with how I try not to be part of the problem. If it were conversation about activism, I can talk about my engagement with the city council and contributions to relevant charities. If this were a conversation about energy use in California I could talk about the premium I pay on my electricity so it is from renewable sources. https://www.smud.org/en/Going-Green/Get-Green-Energy/Residential https://www.smud.org/en/Going-Green/Get-Green-Energy/Residen... Reducing car usage is, in that journal article I referenced, the number 2 thing you can do to reduce your climate impact. I have not misrepresented anything. You’re right about the water. That’s something I’m still learning about.
  - mahogany 5y ago
    > Yes. It completely misrepresents the actual complexity of the problem. Instead of discussing effective solutions like political activity the climate change debate gets dumbed down to reusable cotton bags and paper straws. I've encountered this sentiment many times here. It's a bit baffling to me, to be honest. Yes, we all know that personal actions are small compared to massive structural changes. But why exactly do you think that it's one or the other? I'd wager that the majority of politically active people trying to change things at a high level are also changing smaller things in their day-to-day life, because it's an issue that they are passionate about. In my opinion, the attitude that you promote ("why do the little actions when only the big ones matter") is more likely to cause inaction, and the people I've met who espouse that viewpoint say a lot and do nothing at all.

Osmium 5y ago

I agree, for what it's worth. You're not alone with this. Of course, there are many individual life circumstances that mean a car is an absolute necessity, but for many people it's a choice, whether they acknowledge they've made that choice or not. This is especially true for people who are more affluent.

nanagojo 5y ago

> I've no kids, yet (maybe never). IMO this is short term thinking. What happens to the planet when you are gone? If all the like minded individuals who cared about the climate opt to not have kids, then those who inherit the earth will keep polluting.

euroderf 5y ago
"The Marching Morons", Cyril M. Kornbluth
goodpoint 5y ago
Polluting is not some habit that people inherit genetically from their parents.

Xplune13 5y ago

All these things are great except one point in my opinion. I never understood "I won't have any children so I can minimize the effect on the climate". How about "I will have 2 children at max and teach them what I've learned so far but at younger stage? so that they will act responsibly in the future regarding climate issues while living and maybe doing things to lessen the climate change effects in the future?". In the end, it is your choice with what you want to do. Things you're doing to contribute less like being car-free etc. are good, but I really find this extreme stance of "not having children for climate change" short-sighted. Edit: typo

throwaway8689 5y ago

Since you refer to Ireland as home I'm reminded of a conversation with a colleague where we were talking about pollution. I suggested flying be restricted to migrants who needed to visit family. My colleague thought that was a great idea. Then I continued that migration should be restricted since it creates demand for air travel. Colleague liked that far less. Disclosure: my spouse is a migrant and we both fly to visit.