3 ms·

I'm totally with you. I'm annoyed by the climate change (CO2) narrative. It is far too narrow. Rather we should be talking about an umbrella of unsustainabilit

by fleddr 4y ago

I'm totally with you. I'm annoyed by the climate change (CO2) narrative. It is far too narrow. Rather we should be talking about an umbrella of unsustainability that includes wildlife decimation, biodiversity collapsing, pollution, overfishing, deforestation, water and air quality. We shouldn't just live in a way that expels less CO2, we should live in a way that doesn't annihilate the biosphere. And yes, gardens are a great personal way to make a start. Mine too has native flowers which attract lots of insects, in turn attracting birds and bats. Plus some mini ponds. It's far less work compared to a sterile garden whilst much more fun.

Siddarth1977 4y ago
People do talk about all those things. There are plenty of groups dedicated to each of those things individually or which include all of those things in their mission statement. Unfortunately, we live in a world where getting even the most basic policy changes to protect the environment is a herculean effort, so people rationally focus much of their attention on the largest or most urgent things. If you had a friend who was playing with Uranium, smoking cigarettes and eating food with artificial colors, it'd be fair to say they should stop doing all of those things to avoid getting cancer. But it'd also be fair to focus mostly on the Uranium.
rhaway84773 4y ago
The people who talk about expelling less CO2 also talks about those other things. It’s kind of amazing that in the broad spectrum of groups you could talk about that are having a negative effect on biodiversity, etc. anyone would mention climate change activists and groups when not only is their fight broadly related, they’re almost completely in alignment with more biodiversity. This dynamic where such comments attack people who support the commenter’s stance but support it maybe 80% are attacked by the commenter, but the people who do not support their stance, are actually in power, and are going out of their way to destroy what the commenter claims to care about are not even mentioned is fascinating.

by fleddr 4y ago

Siddarth1977 4y ago

People do talk about all those things. There are plenty of groups dedicated to each of those things individually or which include all of those things in their mission statement. Unfortunately, we live in a world where getting even the most basic policy changes to protect the environment is a herculean effort, so people rationally focus much of their attention on the largest or most urgent things. If you had a friend who was playing with Uranium, smoking cigarettes and eating food with artificial colors, it'd be fair to say they should stop doing all of those things to avoid getting cancer. But it'd also be fair to focus mostly on the Uranium.

rhaway84773 4y ago

The people who talk about expelling less CO2 also talks about those other things. It’s kind of amazing that in the broad spectrum of groups you could talk about that are having a negative effect on biodiversity, etc. anyone would mention climate change activists and groups when not only is their fight broadly related, they’re almost completely in alignment with more biodiversity. This dynamic where such comments attack people who support the commenter’s stance but support it maybe 80% are attacked by the commenter, but the people who do not support their stance, are actually in power, and are going out of their way to destroy what the commenter claims to care about are not even mentioned is fascinating.