6 ms·

> why this triggers such skepticism I know it does for me - because the people who claim to believe in it the most don't actually live their lives as if they a

> why this triggers such skepticism I know it does for me - because the people who claim to believe in it the most don't actually live their lives as if they actually believed it. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy to do whatever I could reasonably do to create cooler summers and less smog, but I've never heard any actual concrete proposal beyond "vote democrat".

pixl97 3y ago
In general because the tragedy of the commons is solved by one group pointing a gun at everyone else. Nobody wants that, but at the end of the day that's what we're going to get if we like it or not. The longer we wait, the more people are going to get shot by that gun.
bottled_poe 3y ago
Curious!
vlz 3y ago
Ok, I will bite. Concrete proposals for anybody regardless of political view: * Eat half the meat you do or less * Don‘t fly unless absolutely necessary * Get on a plan for renewable electrical energy if possible I know, far from everything in this topic is about consumer choices but a lot really is. If you don‘t want the nanny state to fix your problems you can start at your own doorstep.
- twobitshifter 3y ago
  The flying thing is weird. It’s really that you emit a lot because you traveled so far. It’s more efficient that driving per mile and slightly less efficient than rail (not sure the type) https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-math-of-flying-vs-driving/ https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-... So it should be don’t travel so far and if you have to, take a train and if there’s no train, carpool, but fly rather than drive if you are traveling alone.
  - amrocha 3y ago
    Most people aren't driving across the country every time they need to go from the east coast to the west coast. If planes didn't exist these trips would also not exist.
    - twobitshifter 3y ago
      Right, our quest for ever faster travel has led to consuming huge amounts of energy. Even something like the interstates has contributed to this by shrinking travel times to downtown and encouraging people to travel greater distances at higher speed.
  - vlz 3y ago
    Thank you for the linked article! Yes that is an apt and necessary correction.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- labster 3y ago
  It’s expensive to eat less meat. And I done mean in an abstract way about the time it takes to prepare meals, etc. On a per weight basis, chicken is half the price of peanut butter or cheese at the local grocery store. A whole cooked chicken is even cheaper at Costco. Not everyone can afford to eat less meat and replace it with plant protein.
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    Fair, but you can probably help save both money and the environment by cutting back on beef, and replacing it with chicken. Chicken is FAR more resource-efficient than beef. It's too bad they haven't figured out how to make it taste similar (of course, chicken doesn't taste bad, it's just really different, just like vanilla and chocolate ice cream taste different but one is not better than the other except in terms of personal preference).
  - vlz 3y ago
    True, but I would like to add: 1. If you can afford it, you should still reduce. 2. The meat and dairy industries are heavily subsidized especially in developed countries. These prices are artificially low.[1] The subsidies could of course be shifted to human edible plants (instead of feeding corn/maize) making plant-based diets more affordable. At the moment however few politician want to be connected to rising meat prices. If they were to get clear signals from their voters for shifting preferences of course that could also change. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/14/global-farm-subsidies-damage-people-planet-un-climate-crisis-nature-inequality https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/14/global-f...
  - elevaet 3y ago
    Chicken is a really green choice for getting your protein: - Chicken produces around 1/6 the CO2 of beef, and less than cheese. - Chicken uses around 1/10 the water than beef does. - Beef produces lots of methane and chicken doesn't. Chicken consumption isn't really a problem. When we say "reduce meat consumption" we should be saying reduce beef consumption.
- lazide 3y ago
  Considering that will just result in a lower quality of life for me, and everyone else not even noticing (and not moving the needle even a little globally) - why? It’s like self flagellation in private. Maybe soul cleansing religiously or something, but utterly pointless in the real world.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  You completely left out the enormous impact that cars have. How about get rid of your car, move someplace walkable if you have to, and stop driving?
  - vlz 3y ago
    You are right, that would certainly be a very big contribution and could have been listed as well. Relocating however is a very big step. While I actually don’t own a car myself and seldom needed one, I am hesitant to prescribe that to others as I know the situation outside the bigger cities gets unpleasant very fast when you are not mobile and relocating is a drastic step not available to everyone. In the area of personal mobility, change away from cars could only result from collective action, e.g. drastic improvements to public transport and less from personal choice. (EVs however or hybrids are also a real option for many.)
- dr_dshiv 3y ago
  Yeah, but not having children blows these out of the water. I mean, its not even on the same chart.
deprecative 3y ago
One of the reasons for this is because you're not actually responsible for all that much as a middle class and below person. Yeah, get better fuel efficient cars. Yeah, eat less meat. Yeah, get the most out of what you can when you buy things. But that's not going to do much while corporations are still chugging along. It won't do much while coal and gas are the primary energy production. Sure, use less electricity and get onto renewables as much as you can but the offenders will buy these nonsensical carbon credits and such that cause issue. The real answer is definitely vote Democratic, one cannot vote democrat as that's not a party in the US. But more than that it gets involved in the political process such that change to our policies are done with climate change in kind. You won't get that from Republicans.
yongjik 3y ago
> I've never heard any actual concrete proposal beyond "vote democrat". Trump called the global warming a "Chinese hoax." If you're looking for leverages to influence the global climate as a US citizen, "vote democrat" is not a bad strategy. (Have to add: it's not because democrats are awesome, but because the alternative is horrible.)

pixl97 3y ago

In general because the tragedy of the commons is solved by one group pointing a gun at everyone else. Nobody wants that, but at the end of the day that's what we're going to get if we like it or not. The longer we wait, the more people are going to get shot by that gun.

bottled_poe 3y ago

Curious!

vlz 3y ago

Ok, I will bite. Concrete proposals for anybody regardless of political view: * Eat half the meat you do or less * Don‘t fly unless absolutely necessary * Get on a plan for renewable electrical energy if possible I know, far from everything in this topic is about consumer choices but a lot really is. If you don‘t want the nanny state to fix your problems you can start at your own doorstep.

twobitshifter 3y ago
The flying thing is weird. It’s really that you emit a lot because you traveled so far. It’s more efficient that driving per mile and slightly less efficient than rail (not sure the type) https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-math-of-flying-vs-driving/ https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-... So it should be don’t travel so far and if you have to, take a train and if there’s no train, carpool, but fly rather than drive if you are traveling alone.
- amrocha 3y ago
  Most people aren't driving across the country every time they need to go from the east coast to the west coast. If planes didn't exist these trips would also not exist.
  - twobitshifter 3y ago
    Right, our quest for ever faster travel has led to consuming huge amounts of energy. Even something like the interstates has contributed to this by shrinking travel times to downtown and encouraging people to travel greater distances at higher speed.
- vlz 3y ago
  Thank you for the linked article! Yes that is an apt and necessary correction.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
labster 3y ago
It’s expensive to eat less meat. And I done mean in an abstract way about the time it takes to prepare meals, etc. On a per weight basis, chicken is half the price of peanut butter or cheese at the local grocery store. A whole cooked chicken is even cheaper at Costco. Not everyone can afford to eat less meat and replace it with plant protein.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  Fair, but you can probably help save both money and the environment by cutting back on beef, and replacing it with chicken. Chicken is FAR more resource-efficient than beef. It's too bad they haven't figured out how to make it taste similar (of course, chicken doesn't taste bad, it's just really different, just like vanilla and chocolate ice cream taste different but one is not better than the other except in terms of personal preference).
- vlz 3y ago
  True, but I would like to add: 1. If you can afford it, you should still reduce. 2. The meat and dairy industries are heavily subsidized especially in developed countries. These prices are artificially low.[1] The subsidies could of course be shifted to human edible plants (instead of feeding corn/maize) making plant-based diets more affordable. At the moment however few politician want to be connected to rising meat prices. If they were to get clear signals from their voters for shifting preferences of course that could also change. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/14/global-farm-subsidies-damage-people-planet-un-climate-crisis-nature-inequality https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/14/global-f...
- elevaet 3y ago
  Chicken is a really green choice for getting your protein: - Chicken produces around 1/6 the CO2 of beef, and less than cheese. - Chicken uses around 1/10 the water than beef does. - Beef produces lots of methane and chicken doesn't. Chicken consumption isn't really a problem. When we say "reduce meat consumption" we should be saying reduce beef consumption.
lazide 3y ago
Considering that will just result in a lower quality of life for me, and everyone else not even noticing (and not moving the needle even a little globally) - why? It’s like self flagellation in private. Maybe soul cleansing religiously or something, but utterly pointless in the real world.
midoridensha 3y ago
You completely left out the enormous impact that cars have. How about get rid of your car, move someplace walkable if you have to, and stop driving?
- vlz 3y ago
  You are right, that would certainly be a very big contribution and could have been listed as well. Relocating however is a very big step. While I actually don’t own a car myself and seldom needed one, I am hesitant to prescribe that to others as I know the situation outside the bigger cities gets unpleasant very fast when you are not mobile and relocating is a drastic step not available to everyone. In the area of personal mobility, change away from cars could only result from collective action, e.g. drastic improvements to public transport and less from personal choice. (EVs however or hybrids are also a real option for many.)
dr_dshiv 3y ago
Yeah, but not having children blows these out of the water. I mean, its not even on the same chart.

deprecative 3y ago

One of the reasons for this is because you're not actually responsible for all that much as a middle class and below person. Yeah, get better fuel efficient cars. Yeah, eat less meat. Yeah, get the most out of what you can when you buy things. But that's not going to do much while corporations are still chugging along. It won't do much while coal and gas are the primary energy production. Sure, use less electricity and get onto renewables as much as you can but the offenders will buy these nonsensical carbon credits and such that cause issue. The real answer is definitely vote Democratic, one cannot vote democrat as that's not a party in the US. But more than that it gets involved in the political process such that change to our policies are done with climate change in kind. You won't get that from Republicans.

yongjik 3y ago

> I've never heard any actual concrete proposal beyond "vote democrat". Trump called the global warming a "Chinese hoax." If you're looking for leverages to influence the global climate as a US citizen, "vote democrat" is not a bad strategy. (Have to add: it's not because democrats are awesome, but because the alternative is horrible.)