3 ms·
This is why we’ll never “stop the climate crisis.” Everybody thinks somebody else is causing the problem and that somebody else needs to change more than they t
by paulcole 4y ago
This is why we’ll never “stop the climate crisis.” Everybody thinks somebody else is causing the problem and that somebody else needs to change more than they themselves do.
The truth is, stopping the climate crisis involves everybody changing how they live in a significant way. Anything short of that and you better hope your great grandkids like eating crickets and forest fires.
The sadder truth is that the climate crisis is unstoppable so it doesn’t really matter how many cows you eat.
- seanmcdirmid 4y agoIf someone focus’s on 1% of the problem and never touch the 99%, the former is going to get frustrated and give up.
- paulcole 4y agoIf everybody doesn’t treat climate change as a problem that they’re both the cause of and solution to, we’re never going to touch the 99%. You think these corporations are growing almonds in the desert and raising cows because nobody buys them?
- junofan 4y agoWe’ve had fifty years of behavior change messaging. It’s time to take a different approach.
- paulcole 4y agoSocietal change (down to the individual level) is the only thing that's going to work. People will have to change how they live and make different decisions. Full stop. There's no magic solution waiting to be discovered. Whether the change comes voluntarily or through war, famine, and misery for future generations the likes of which we can't imagine is up to those of us alive today.
- Aunche 4y agoBehavior change is completely necessary if you want societal change. If you reduce the supply of meat/oil with policy without reducing demand, it would increase prices and people would protest, so we'd be back at square one.
- eweise 4y agoYou're asking a lot if you think consumers should know what the effect of buying almonds has on the water supply. Simply charge the almond farmers more for their water, almond prices go up, consumers buy less of them.
- maccard 4y agoAgriculture is responsible for far more than 1% of the problem - USDA says about 10.5% [0]. And those of us who do advocate for making more sustainable decisions are not ignoring the other 89%, we're actively trying to reduce that too. [0] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/climate-change/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environmen...
- picsao 4y ago
- eixiepia 4y ago
- AYBABTME 4y agoNot having kid is a pretty non starter idea. It's akind to asking a species "why don't you just commit suicide"? So called entitlement to breed is how life started in the first place.
- guelo 4y agoIf the most conscientious people stop having kids it will leave the next generation in worse shape to fight climate change. The CO2-lovers are having as many kids as possible and indoctrinating them heavily.
- paulcole 4y ago> most conscientious people The difference between most and least conscientious people is essentially zero. Anybody having kids isn’t conscientious and is also a CO2-lover themselves.
- rayiner 4y agoThat’s fine with me. More resources for my grandkids!
- paulcole 4y agoI actually agree with you. But nobody wants to hear it. A person deciding not to have biological children is the best decision they can make to combat climate change. This does not mean everyone will stop having kids. It means that if you are willing to make the choice to not have biological children then it's something you should strongly consider if you want to maximize your individual impact on fighting climate change.
- aerostable_slug 4y agoTBH, if someone bases their decision whether or not to have children on their ecological impact to the world, I would suspect that they're mentally ill.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]