3 ms·

its the single most impactful marginal decision a person can make, thank you.

quonn 4y ago
No it isn‘t. The single most impactful one would be to not have kids. And let me make it clear that I‘m not saying to not have them. I’m just saying that there are different factors that contribute and how one person chooses to cut is their and only their decision. Going a long distance by car is about 4x better than flying, but if you drive 4x as far you have emitted more than on that flight.
- 11235813213455 4y ago
  It's an optimisation problem, with no binary answers, so everything has to be optimised. Personally: no cars, no plane travels, no kids, no meat/fish, no consumerism, but people don't have to go that far like 1 kid, a light fuel-efficient or light electric vehicle, local food, eggs, and an optimised consumerism, this already cuts down by at least 2 the average CO2 impact by person which is around 9t/y in developed countries
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    Refusing to have children to stop global warming completely defeats the purpose. Global warming isn't going to destroy the Earth within our lifetime, so our future generations are the only reason we should worry about it at all.
    - quonn 4y ago
      Well, first it will have an impact is our lifetime. It already has. But you have a point. But the idea is not to have no future generations. It's to have smaller generations over time. Perhaps 10-50x times smaller. This would requires a few generations to happen. Even by just having one kid 10x would be achieved in three or four generations. In theory. In practise it would create a lot of economical problems as well, because the economy would shrink a lot. We are currently not prepared for that and nobody knows how to do it. On the other hand it's a moot point, the global population is actually growing and even in rich countries it's at least more or less stable.
    - 11235813213455 4y ago
      you're answering in a binary way after my response saying it's a multifactor optimisation problem. Some people will have 2, 1 or 0 children. Improving education and healthcare also have this effect to lower birth rate. And of course everything else has to be done, low-impact transports, food, etc.. The parent comment "No it isn‘t. The single most impactful one would be to not have kids." is also again turning things into a binary problem, there is no single solution, artificial CO2 sinks are not a single solution at all, we should not skip emissions because they represent less than 2% of global emissions for the same reason

No it isn‘t. The single most impactful one would be to not have kids. And let me make it clear that I‘m not saying to not have them. I’m just saying that there are different factors that contribute and how one person chooses to cut is their and only their decision. Going a long distance by car is about 4x better than flying, but if you drive 4x as far you have emitted more than on that flight.

11235813213455 4y ago
It's an optimisation problem, with no binary answers, so everything has to be optimised. Personally: no cars, no plane travels, no kids, no meat/fish, no consumerism, but people don't have to go that far like 1 kid, a light fuel-efficient or light electric vehicle, local food, eggs, and an optimised consumerism, this already cuts down by at least 2 the average CO2 impact by person which is around 9t/y in developed countries
- josephcsible 4y ago
  Refusing to have children to stop global warming completely defeats the purpose. Global warming isn't going to destroy the Earth within our lifetime, so our future generations are the only reason we should worry about it at all.
  - quonn 4y ago
    Well, first it will have an impact is our lifetime. It already has. But you have a point. But the idea is not to have no future generations. It's to have smaller generations over time. Perhaps 10-50x times smaller. This would requires a few generations to happen. Even by just having one kid 10x would be achieved in three or four generations. In theory. In practise it would create a lot of economical problems as well, because the economy would shrink a lot. We are currently not prepared for that and nobody knows how to do it. On the other hand it's a moot point, the global population is actually growing and even in rich countries it's at least more or less stable.
  - 11235813213455 4y ago
    you're answering in a binary way after my response saying it's a multifactor optimisation problem. Some people will have 2, 1 or 0 children. Improving education and healthcare also have this effect to lower birth rate. And of course everything else has to be done, low-impact transports, food, etc.. The parent comment "No it isn‘t. The single most impactful one would be to not have kids." is also again turning things into a binary problem, there is no single solution, artificial CO2 sinks are not a single solution at all, we should not skip emissions because they represent less than 2% of global emissions for the same reason