15 ms·

Nobody cares. Most have decided they prefer SUVs, cheap burgers and flying to Greece twice a year for 50 quid over the Amazon being a thing or co-existing with

Nobody cares. Most have decided they prefer SUVs, cheap burgers and flying to Greece twice a year for 50 quid over the Amazon being a thing or co-existing with wildlife. And the ones that didn't make that choice are unwilling to change things because deep down they know violence (in the short term) is the only thing that can stop the car going over the cliff.

nine_zeros 3y ago
> Nobody cares. Yep, too busy boosting my lines of code for an unskilled BS manager. I don't even have time for my family, let alone the environment.
GravityLab 3y ago
> violence (in the short term) is the only thing that can stop the car going over the cliff. nah that’s just what ideologues say because they care more about their top-down control agenda. If climate change was fixed tomorrow, they’d be disappointed because they wouldn’t be able to exact control over others in the name of climate concern. Plant more trees. Invest in renewables.
- Podgajski 3y ago
  > Plant more trees. Invest in renewables. I do not know how people can be convinced those things will do anything to mitigate the changes we are seeing and will see for years even if we stop all carbon output now. What his needed is shame, for people to be shamed, but we have no religion anymore so no one cares about shame.
  - peteradio 3y ago
    Trees give shade, shade reduces energy demand.
  - GravityLab 3y ago
    Nah, leave shaming in the era of the Salem witch trials. We don't need that. Here's what we need: - global amount of co2 emissions per year https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi.... - average co2 sequestered per tree - 25-45 kg depending on species (google for estimates) https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2015/03/17/power-one-tree-ve https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2015/03/17/power-one-tree-ve... 37 billion metric tons / 25 kg = ~1.48 trillion Amount of land available for reforestation as of 2019 is enough for 1.2 trillion native saplings. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax0848 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax0848 Given the above, we could plant this many trees in a year or two if we really tried. Couple that effort with more renewables, more investment into fusion and co2 sequestration machines, more electric cars, etc, and it's taken care of. I would question the character of any person who wants to be the one doing the shaming or thinking we need shaming for this. This is an engineering problem.
  - spandextwins 3y ago
    The carbon credit contingency says otherwise. You can actually get carbon credits by planting trees.
- beepbooptheory 3y ago
  Aren't we already at the whim of "ideologues" who care about their top-down control agenda? Isn't that necessarily what, like, a given nation's government is in our world? Even by this logic, I'm gonna go with the guys who've put themselves behind the mitigate-climate-disaster agenda.
- tippytippytango 3y ago
  This. I don’t believe the environmentalists actually care about the environment. They love the power it gives them. It’s why they are against technological solutions that will make the problem go away. My litmus test is nuclear. If an environmentalist doesn’t like nuclear they aren’t a serious person.
tromp 3y ago
I care enough that I limit my own carbon footprint (easier in Holland where you can bike to most places) and always vote for the party that is most eager to tackle climate change. Sadly it looks like it will take many years before a voting majority goes that way...
- secondcoming 3y ago
  I'd love to vote Green for environmental stuff, but up until the war in Ukraine, the UK Green party wanted to pull out of NATO and effectively disband the military.
  - pharmakom 3y ago
    They also have views around rent control and alternative medicine that are off putting for some (and me).
simpaticoder 3y ago
[flagged]
- iknowstuff 3y ago
  No they wouldn’t. This rhetoric is misguided and dangerous. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
  - simpaticoder 3y ago
    >This rhetoric is misguided and dangerous. Is it? It seems to me that the rational, liberal members of the American body politic were and are blind-sided by the take-over of one of our major political parties by a fascist autocrat. Simply putting your head in the sand and wishing it weren't so won't change things. We have a huge percentage of the population that wants a strong-man ruler. That's bad, but it's not clear that can be changed. Therefore, rather than fight against reality and what cannot be changed, accept reality and change what can be. In this case, we cannot change the urge to autocracy, but we can control the identity (and politics) of the autocrat themselves. In an ideal circumstance such a person could do a great deal of good and get the country on track to a functioning democracy, and address the underlying dysfunction that is driving anti-democratic sentiment. This sentiment is the product of a combination of poor education, media manipulation, and also a reasonable reaction to rampant corruption at all levels of government, civil and criminal, moribund corrupt state bar associations and legislative "leaders" who spend more time on the phone asking for money than governing. None of these problems have a clear solution through normal democratic means. Therefore to save democracy we must put democracy aside for a time. The difference between a liberal dictator and Trump is, of course, that such a person does not pursue power for powers sake, but rather to restore functioning democracy. They look forward to putting it down, and hope to shape the system(s) such that such measures won't be needed again. If the choice is between electing a liberal dictator or letting democracy die, do you choose the latter out of principle? And besides this is a thought experiment designed to provoke conversation. "Your bad and your ideas are bad" is not that.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Podgajski 3y ago
I think many people care, but these same people have to work and feed their families. They have to care about climate change more than they care about those things for them to change. Fixing Climate Change needs to be like the World War II Mobilization Effort. Nothing short of that will fix anything. For example, I am currently homeless living in a minivan. I know my carbon footprint is way lower than most people. (Solar for my power, no heat, no ac, etc). But I would love to live in a tiny house close to town with solar. But no one will build them, and they can't even build them because of all the regulations. And then you have people who would be against all this because they think their "freedom" is worth more than children's future. So I am left being a positive nihilist. I know it will all fail but I act the way I do because it is the right thing to do.
mistrial9 3y ago
> Nobody cares. this is so untrue! Channeling a sense of futility is some kind of coping? Large numbers of people, specialists, researchers, university people, clergy.. Elementary school walkouts around the world on the same day? This kind of public defeatism is exactly why under-25 leaders is required -- how about that idea?
- c7DJTLrn 3y ago
  Under 25 seems a bit young, and I say this as a 22-year-old. There isn't enough life experience there to understand the complexities of the real world. But we do need younger people in politics. UK parliament is overwhelmingly old, rich, eurosceptic people. Funny how there's no diversity where it really matters.
jodrellblank 3y ago
The UK government has just stopped off-shore wind turbine growth for the next decade, delayed their ban on internal combustion engine cars another five years, cancelled the High Speed 2 (HS2) railway extension and said they’ll put that money into roads instead. Great.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Populism at work, no surprise since Brexit was tze same thing.
  - netsharc 3y ago
    Tories are a disgusting bunch, they found out being against ULEZ was a vote winner so now they've gone "We love cars!", naked manouvering in hopes of winning those votes and staying in power. Just like Brexit, the fuckwit Goehring but dumb Nigel Farage was going to steal Tory votes, so dumb dumb Cameron promised the Brexit vote to keep those votes. And he was too chickenshit to ignore the results of the referendum although the government was allowed to do so (again, for the price of electoral annihilation).
    - jemmyw 3y ago
      They had a super easy way out of it: another referendum voting for options, or a referendum on any deal. Nobody could agree on what leaving meant and giving the choice to the electorate would have a) been more democratic and b) probably have kept the UK in the EU as every other option got discussed.
- ksec 3y ago
  >The UK government has just stopped off-shore wind turbine growth for the next decade Any links? Last time I check they have huge amount of work going on in that area.
  - jodrellblank 3y ago
    (I can't find where I got "decade" into my head). They didn't announce a policy change on the matter, but they have auctions for companies to bid for guaranteed electricity prices every couple of years, the most recent one this year. The government were warned that their guaranteed price is too low considering recent inflation and supply chain increases and no bids were expected for offshore wind power, they did nothing, no companies bid in the last auction, so there won't be any new offshore wind power built this round. The next auction date doesn't seem to be announced, there is an announcement that they might become annual so it could be next year. (Having companies' offshore skills idle the next year or two seems likely to lead to knock-on delays if future auctions are bid for and won). From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66740920 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66740920 - "Dan McGrail, the chief executive of industry group RenewableUK, told the BBC: "Industry has highlighted to government on several occasions that this auction has been set up in a way which is very unlikely to secure the capacity we need to stay on track to meet the government's own target of 50 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2050 [up from 13.66GW now]." and also "Labour's shadow energy secretary Ed Miliband told the BBC: "This is just the latest episode in the Tories' 13 years of failed energy policy. They broke the onshore wind market by banning it, they undermined the solar industry by removing the feed-in tariff, and they caused chaos in the home insulation market with their failed schemes." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66749344 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66749344 - "the lack of offshore wind will be a blow to the pledge to deliver 50 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind by 2030 compared with 14GW today." So you can either think that was incompetent or malicious. And when trying to decide you can look at the mentioned de-facto onshore wind power block the Tories put in since 2015 ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66715141 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66715141 ) and the previously announced ban combustion cars by 2030 which they pushed back to 2035 while talking about a new ban on solar panels on farmland ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66863110 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66863110 ). Or maybe their Return to Office policy ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61145692 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61145692 and https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/get-back-work-office-britains-business-minister-says-2022-01-21/ https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/get-back-work-office-britai... ) which. And you can see https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-redirects-hs2-funding-to-revolutionise-transport-across-the-north-and-midlands https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-redirects-hs2-funding-... about the HS2 rail, and wonder to yourself why the "Spiralling HS2 costs" were something the government could not cope with, but the "faster journey times, increased capacity and more frequent, reliable services across rail, buses and roads" are something they will be able to deliver. When part of the HS2 plan was to move intercity trains off the local lines and freight off the roads, leading to more frequent reliable road and bus journeys. "billions to fix potholes on the country’s roads" - first, we know what causes potholes; heavy vehicles moving frieght". And this is more reliable bus journeys from the government which brought us "Buses in 'crisis' as 3,000 routes reduced or scrapped" in 2018 ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44681974 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44681974 ) and killed off 20% of bus services in the last year ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66442599 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66442599 ).
11235813213455 3y ago
I've a bicycle (found in trash) as my vehicle, no fridge, no heating, no AC, no hot water, almost nothing in my tiny apartment (14m2) with a rice cooker, I even cut my beard with scissors, and have can't understand why people even use electric toothbrush, ridiculous low electricity usage, I carry my own food trash (vegetable) and bury it somewhere quiet, my footprint may be less than 0.05% of the average person in France. I eat very rarely fish or poultry/eggs, my food is very local (foraging figs June-October, persimmons then, oranges, medlars in spring), local markets (collecting what's thrown away/very ripe), and some rice for winter 100% agree with you, why is it still allowed to build personal swimming pools? those insanely large cars, oversized houses, widespread ignorance and disrespect for the environment
- pharmakom 3y ago
  Do you have a blog or anything? Sounds like an interesting life!
  - 11235813213455 3y ago
    I wish, but I spend much time outside, I hope the blog will be in the eyes of children who see this strange guy having fun riding his bike and inspire them at some point
  - LastNevadan 3y ago
    You might take a look at this: https://earlyretirementextreme.com/ https://earlyretirementextreme.com/ This isn't the poster you replied to, but someone with a similar point of view of trying to live simply.
    - 11235813213455 3y ago
      yes, maybe Robin Greenfield too (note I didn't start this lifestyle trying to copy someone, for me it happened after some depression, I stopped spending money besides housing rent, and gradually enjoyed this new lifestyle, now sometimes I buy food, but still very minimal)
- 3y ago
p1mrx 3y ago
> deep down they know violence (in the short term) is the only thing that can stop the car going over the cliff Passing a carbon fee and dividend[1] would help a lot, though I guess it's uncertain whether something on that scale could be enforced without violence. [1] https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/energy-innovation-act/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/energy...
OrvalWintermute 3y ago
I prefer the electric SUV powered by offshore windmills and refrigerated, 1000 miles from consumption site vegan salads so I can pretend at least to care about the environment whether or not the decisions are actually environmentally sound. Because I am invested with Blackrock and my ESG scores are off the charts I also get to brag to my friends while flying my personal jet to Davos ;) /s
amelius 3y ago
The explanation for the Fermi paradox becomes clearer and clearer ...
- immmmmm 3y ago
  The window for collective intelligence is getting narrower indeed.
pokstad 3y ago
People care, but there needs to be balance between environmentalism and social mobility. The “haves” are the ones telling everyone else to continue being “have nots”. Current environmentalist attitudes are becoming religious and self righteous.
- ses1984 3y ago
  There are haves and then there are haves. The super rich have a much higher per person impact and they can afford to do things efficiently rather than cheap and polluting. Then global middle class also have a higher per person impact than the global lower class. So what if some people are unfairly targeting the “have nots”? We don’t have to let them drive the conversation and distract from real issues.
  - ThrowawayTestr 3y ago
    I will give up flying coach when billionaires give up private jets.
jimbob45 3y ago
And the ones that didn't make that choice are unwilling to change things because deep down they know violence (in the short term) is the only thing that can stop the car going over the cliff. You’re fearmongering in an attempt to incite violence. I half suspect this to be a closet Greenpeace account.
- bantunes 3y ago
  > You’re fearmongering in an attempt to incite violence. I half suspect this to be a closet Greenpeace account. You're already under a form of violence - your kids will wonder why you never did anything about it.
immmmmm 3y ago
There’s also active manipulation by fossil fuel companies, following the exact scheme as tobacco companies. They invest billions per year into this with great success: easily 40% of westerners are in some kind of denial compared to less than 10% in southern countries. And lobbyism too: 7T$ of FF subsidies per year, while a global energy transition has been estimated at 7T$. So in one year of subsidies we could solve a big part of the problem.
tippytippytango 3y ago
What convinces you violence is the only possible solution? You’ve ruled out technological solutions?
ubu7737 3y ago
[dead]

nine_zeros 3y ago

> Nobody cares. Yep, too busy boosting my lines of code for an unskilled BS manager. I don't even have time for my family, let alone the environment.

GravityLab 3y ago

> violence (in the short term) is the only thing that can stop the car going over the cliff. nah that’s just what ideologues say because they care more about their top-down control agenda. If climate change was fixed tomorrow, they’d be disappointed because they wouldn’t be able to exact control over others in the name of climate concern. Plant more trees. Invest in renewables.

Podgajski 3y ago
> Plant more trees. Invest in renewables. I do not know how people can be convinced those things will do anything to mitigate the changes we are seeing and will see for years even if we stop all carbon output now. What his needed is shame, for people to be shamed, but we have no religion anymore so no one cares about shame.
- peteradio 3y ago
  Trees give shade, shade reduces energy demand.
- GravityLab 3y ago
  Nah, leave shaming in the era of the Salem witch trials. We don't need that. Here's what we need: - global amount of co2 emissions per year https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi.... - average co2 sequestered per tree - 25-45 kg depending on species (google for estimates) https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2015/03/17/power-one-tree-ve https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2015/03/17/power-one-tree-ve... 37 billion metric tons / 25 kg = ~1.48 trillion Amount of land available for reforestation as of 2019 is enough for 1.2 trillion native saplings. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax0848 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax0848 Given the above, we could plant this many trees in a year or two if we really tried. Couple that effort with more renewables, more investment into fusion and co2 sequestration machines, more electric cars, etc, and it's taken care of. I would question the character of any person who wants to be the one doing the shaming or thinking we need shaming for this. This is an engineering problem.
- spandextwins 3y ago
  The carbon credit contingency says otherwise. You can actually get carbon credits by planting trees.
beepbooptheory 3y ago
Aren't we already at the whim of "ideologues" who care about their top-down control agenda? Isn't that necessarily what, like, a given nation's government is in our world? Even by this logic, I'm gonna go with the guys who've put themselves behind the mitigate-climate-disaster agenda.
tippytippytango 3y ago
This. I don’t believe the environmentalists actually care about the environment. They love the power it gives them. It’s why they are against technological solutions that will make the problem go away. My litmus test is nuclear. If an environmentalist doesn’t like nuclear they aren’t a serious person.

tromp 3y ago

I care enough that I limit my own carbon footprint (easier in Holland where you can bike to most places) and always vote for the party that is most eager to tackle climate change. Sadly it looks like it will take many years before a voting majority goes that way...

secondcoming 3y ago
I'd love to vote Green for environmental stuff, but up until the war in Ukraine, the UK Green party wanted to pull out of NATO and effectively disband the military.
- pharmakom 3y ago
  They also have views around rent control and alternative medicine that are off putting for some (and me).

simpaticoder 3y ago

[flagged]

iknowstuff 3y ago
No they wouldn’t. This rhetoric is misguided and dangerous. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
- simpaticoder 3y ago
  >This rhetoric is misguided and dangerous. Is it? It seems to me that the rational, liberal members of the American body politic were and are blind-sided by the take-over of one of our major political parties by a fascist autocrat. Simply putting your head in the sand and wishing it weren't so won't change things. We have a huge percentage of the population that wants a strong-man ruler. That's bad, but it's not clear that can be changed. Therefore, rather than fight against reality and what cannot be changed, accept reality and change what can be. In this case, we cannot change the urge to autocracy, but we can control the identity (and politics) of the autocrat themselves. In an ideal circumstance such a person could do a great deal of good and get the country on track to a functioning democracy, and address the underlying dysfunction that is driving anti-democratic sentiment. This sentiment is the product of a combination of poor education, media manipulation, and also a reasonable reaction to rampant corruption at all levels of government, civil and criminal, moribund corrupt state bar associations and legislative "leaders" who spend more time on the phone asking for money than governing. None of these problems have a clear solution through normal democratic means. Therefore to save democracy we must put democracy aside for a time. The difference between a liberal dictator and Trump is, of course, that such a person does not pursue power for powers sake, but rather to restore functioning democracy. They look forward to putting it down, and hope to shape the system(s) such that such measures won't be needed again. If the choice is between electing a liberal dictator or letting democracy die, do you choose the latter out of principle? And besides this is a thought experiment designed to provoke conversation. "Your bad and your ideas are bad" is not that.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Podgajski 3y ago

I think many people care, but these same people have to work and feed their families. They have to care about climate change more than they care about those things for them to change. Fixing Climate Change needs to be like the World War II Mobilization Effort. Nothing short of that will fix anything. For example, I am currently homeless living in a minivan. I know my carbon footprint is way lower than most people. (Solar for my power, no heat, no ac, etc). But I would love to live in a tiny house close to town with solar. But no one will build them, and they can't even build them because of all the regulations. And then you have people who would be against all this because they think their "freedom" is worth more than children's future. So I am left being a positive nihilist. I know it will all fail but I act the way I do because it is the right thing to do.

mistrial9 3y ago

> Nobody cares. this is so untrue! Channeling a sense of futility is some kind of coping? Large numbers of people, specialists, researchers, university people, clergy.. Elementary school walkouts around the world on the same day? This kind of public defeatism is exactly why under-25 leaders is required -- how about that idea?

c7DJTLrn 3y ago
Under 25 seems a bit young, and I say this as a 22-year-old. There isn't enough life experience there to understand the complexities of the real world. But we do need younger people in politics. UK parliament is overwhelmingly old, rich, eurosceptic people. Funny how there's no diversity where it really matters.

jodrellblank 3y ago

The UK government has just stopped off-shore wind turbine growth for the next decade, delayed their ban on internal combustion engine cars another five years, cancelled the High Speed 2 (HS2) railway extension and said they’ll put that money into roads instead. Great.

hef19898 3y ago
Populism at work, no surprise since Brexit was tze same thing.
- netsharc 3y ago
  Tories are a disgusting bunch, they found out being against ULEZ was a vote winner so now they've gone "We love cars!", naked manouvering in hopes of winning those votes and staying in power. Just like Brexit, the fuckwit Goehring but dumb Nigel Farage was going to steal Tory votes, so dumb dumb Cameron promised the Brexit vote to keep those votes. And he was too chickenshit to ignore the results of the referendum although the government was allowed to do so (again, for the price of electoral annihilation).
  - jemmyw 3y ago
    They had a super easy way out of it: another referendum voting for options, or a referendum on any deal. Nobody could agree on what leaving meant and giving the choice to the electorate would have a) been more democratic and b) probably have kept the UK in the EU as every other option got discussed.
ksec 3y ago
>The UK government has just stopped off-shore wind turbine growth for the next decade Any links? Last time I check they have huge amount of work going on in that area.
- jodrellblank 3y ago
  (I can't find where I got "decade" into my head). They didn't announce a policy change on the matter, but they have auctions for companies to bid for guaranteed electricity prices every couple of years, the most recent one this year. The government were warned that their guaranteed price is too low considering recent inflation and supply chain increases and no bids were expected for offshore wind power, they did nothing, no companies bid in the last auction, so there won't be any new offshore wind power built this round. The next auction date doesn't seem to be announced, there is an announcement that they might become annual so it could be next year. (Having companies' offshore skills idle the next year or two seems likely to lead to knock-on delays if future auctions are bid for and won). From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66740920 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66740920 - "Dan McGrail, the chief executive of industry group RenewableUK, told the BBC: "Industry has highlighted to government on several occasions that this auction has been set up in a way which is very unlikely to secure the capacity we need to stay on track to meet the government's own target of 50 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2050 [up from 13.66GW now]." and also "Labour's shadow energy secretary Ed Miliband told the BBC: "This is just the latest episode in the Tories' 13 years of failed energy policy. They broke the onshore wind market by banning it, they undermined the solar industry by removing the feed-in tariff, and they caused chaos in the home insulation market with their failed schemes." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66749344 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66749344 - "the lack of offshore wind will be a blow to the pledge to deliver 50 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind by 2030 compared with 14GW today." So you can either think that was incompetent or malicious. And when trying to decide you can look at the mentioned de-facto onshore wind power block the Tories put in since 2015 ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66715141 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66715141 ) and the previously announced ban combustion cars by 2030 which they pushed back to 2035 while talking about a new ban on solar panels on farmland ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66863110 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66863110 ). Or maybe their Return to Office policy ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61145692 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61145692 and https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/get-back-work-office-britains-business-minister-says-2022-01-21/ https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/get-back-work-office-britai... ) which. And you can see https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-redirects-hs2-funding-to-revolutionise-transport-across-the-north-and-midlands https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-redirects-hs2-funding-... about the HS2 rail, and wonder to yourself why the "Spiralling HS2 costs" were something the government could not cope with, but the "faster journey times, increased capacity and more frequent, reliable services across rail, buses and roads" are something they will be able to deliver. When part of the HS2 plan was to move intercity trains off the local lines and freight off the roads, leading to more frequent reliable road and bus journeys. "billions to fix potholes on the country’s roads" - first, we know what causes potholes; heavy vehicles moving frieght". And this is more reliable bus journeys from the government which brought us "Buses in 'crisis' as 3,000 routes reduced or scrapped" in 2018 ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44681974 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44681974 ) and killed off 20% of bus services in the last year ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66442599 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66442599 ).

11235813213455 3y ago

I've a bicycle (found in trash) as my vehicle, no fridge, no heating, no AC, no hot water, almost nothing in my tiny apartment (14m2) with a rice cooker, I even cut my beard with scissors, and have can't understand why people even use electric toothbrush, ridiculous low electricity usage, I carry my own food trash (vegetable) and bury it somewhere quiet, my footprint may be less than 0.05% of the average person in France. I eat very rarely fish or poultry/eggs, my food is very local (foraging figs June-October, persimmons then, oranges, medlars in spring), local markets (collecting what's thrown away/very ripe), and some rice for winter 100% agree with you, why is it still allowed to build personal swimming pools? those insanely large cars, oversized houses, widespread ignorance and disrespect for the environment

pharmakom 3y ago
Do you have a blog or anything? Sounds like an interesting life!
- 11235813213455 3y ago
  I wish, but I spend much time outside, I hope the blog will be in the eyes of children who see this strange guy having fun riding his bike and inspire them at some point
- LastNevadan 3y ago
  You might take a look at this: https://earlyretirementextreme.com/ https://earlyretirementextreme.com/ This isn't the poster you replied to, but someone with a similar point of view of trying to live simply.
  - 11235813213455 3y ago
    yes, maybe Robin Greenfield too (note I didn't start this lifestyle trying to copy someone, for me it happened after some depression, I stopped spending money besides housing rent, and gradually enjoyed this new lifestyle, now sometimes I buy food, but still very minimal)
3y ago

p1mrx 3y ago

> deep down they know violence (in the short term) is the only thing that can stop the car going over the cliff Passing a carbon fee and dividend[1] would help a lot, though I guess it's uncertain whether something on that scale could be enforced without violence. [1] https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/energy-innovation-act/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/energy...

OrvalWintermute 3y ago

I prefer the electric SUV powered by offshore windmills and refrigerated, 1000 miles from consumption site vegan salads so I can pretend at least to care about the environment whether or not the decisions are actually environmentally sound. Because I am invested with Blackrock and my ESG scores are off the charts I also get to brag to my friends while flying my personal jet to Davos ;) /s

amelius 3y ago

The explanation for the Fermi paradox becomes clearer and clearer ...

immmmmm 3y ago
The window for collective intelligence is getting narrower indeed.

pokstad 3y ago

People care, but there needs to be balance between environmentalism and social mobility. The “haves” are the ones telling everyone else to continue being “have nots”. Current environmentalist attitudes are becoming religious and self righteous.

ses1984 3y ago
There are haves and then there are haves. The super rich have a much higher per person impact and they can afford to do things efficiently rather than cheap and polluting. Then global middle class also have a higher per person impact than the global lower class. So what if some people are unfairly targeting the “have nots”? We don’t have to let them drive the conversation and distract from real issues.
- ThrowawayTestr 3y ago
  I will give up flying coach when billionaires give up private jets.

jimbob45 3y ago

And the ones that didn't make that choice are unwilling to change things because deep down they know violence (in the short term) is the only thing that can stop the car going over the cliff. You’re fearmongering in an attempt to incite violence. I half suspect this to be a closet Greenpeace account.

bantunes 3y ago
> You’re fearmongering in an attempt to incite violence. I half suspect this to be a closet Greenpeace account. You're already under a form of violence - your kids will wonder why you never did anything about it.

immmmmm 3y ago

There’s also active manipulation by fossil fuel companies, following the exact scheme as tobacco companies. They invest billions per year into this with great success: easily 40% of westerners are in some kind of denial compared to less than 10% in southern countries. And lobbyism too: 7T$ of FF subsidies per year, while a global energy transition has been estimated at 7T$. So in one year of subsidies we could solve a big part of the problem.

tippytippytango 3y ago

What convinces you violence is the only possible solution? You’ve ruled out technological solutions?

ubu7737 3y ago

[dead]