4 ms·

Should I just stop caring then? I've been trying my best the recent years to minimize my climate footprint.

moffkalast 2y ago
Honestly? Yes. It won't matter either way at this point, even if we reach net zero worldwide we're still more or less screwed since it's a positive feedback loop in terms of albedo (until all the ice is gone anyway) and the oceans have absorbed enough CO2 to keep emitting it for a long while if atmospheric levels drop. Any actual solutions would involve increasing reflectivity though artificial means, i.e. aerosol geoengineering.
- The_Colonel 2y ago
  > we're still more or less screwed "less screwed" here means "fewer dead people". I think it matters how much screwed are we. BTW this is the exact switcheroo I expect from the climate deniers - first it was "climate change doesn't exist, why should I limit my consumption?", when it's too undeniable they're going to switch in a second to "too late to do anything about it, why should I limit my consumption?"
  - moffkalast 2y ago
    It certainly matters how screwed we are, but a single person eating less meat and taking the bus more often isn't going to make any impact whatsoever when everyone else maintains business as usual. Laws and tax incentives need to drive it first and foremost, but as usual with these things it's too little, too late. Systemic change is what matters and it's all too common that "personal responsibility" is the talking point of corporations who greenwash their operation through buying cheap fake carbon offsets to relieve themselves of any responsibility while outputting more CO2 than a small nation on a daily basis, making sure to simultaneously blame everyone else as much as possible to divert attention.
    - The_Colonel 2y ago
      > but a single person eating less meat That's the same old Tragedy of the Commons argument, which is valid no matter if we're screwed or have a decent chance at solving the crisis. Using this logic, it's irrational to even vote since you waste your time on something which with all probability will have 0 effect. > Systemic change is what matters That's true, but how do you get a systemic change? By influencing individual voting and consumption behavior. Global warming has been started and is still driven the most by democratic countries, you can't absolve yourself of the responsibility. Corporations are a product of the system we've built. They'll never care about the environment, they're not designed to do that. They care about the legal framework, though, which we (in democratic countries) can influence. The hard pill to swallow is that forcing corporations to care about the environment will increase their costs and thus prices of goods and services.
      - moffkalast 2y ago
        It's very much tragedy of the commons, but say with the classical example of wells on a combined finite water source, using less water won't make it last longer when you represent a permille of the total consumption, and you are only really hurting yourself by not using it while it still exists. Meanwhile the bottling plant next door pumps half of it for free and sells to back to you with a label that says "save water". A single vote can change nothing or change everything depending on the overall distribution. If the public opinion is 80% towards one candidate and 20% for the other, even 30% of the votes wouldn't matter. If it's extremely polarized like 50/50 then every vote does indeed make a difference (Gore vs. Bush, topically enough lol). The problem with climate change is that it's more like 95% of people doing nothing cause they just want to live a normal life, and 5% of people trying to do something in a futile way. In the end it doesn't matter if a few million choose to cut down on consumption when the end result is exactly the same in an ocean of billions. > how do you get a systemic change? By influencing individual voting and consumption behavior. That's more like a democratic fantasy, believing that most people would even chose to to the right thing if given the option, instead of the most convenient thing. No, you get it by lobbying key people who have the power to enact change on a massive scale. As you say, corporations only care about legal means and they make sure those means stay in their favor. One might argue that if enough people can be persuaded to stop using a product (e.g. gasoline) then the production of it will lower, but in lots of cases that's a fallacy as well, since the producer will move against an existential threat to itself with all the means at their disposal, PR, legal, or even less legal. And in a sufficiently large market, any impact a single person can make is again a drop in the ocean.
- alganet 2y ago
  If we reach net zero emissions on this decade I think we have a chance. It sounds implausible, but much more plausible than deus ex-machina solutions like aerosols.
alganet 2y ago
I don't know. I still care, but I'm in no position to change anything. Even if I was, I wouldn't be sure on what to do about it. I see the current state of personal ecology (I will change one drop of water in the stream!) as a placebo. It's psychologic engineering more than ecology, and I understand how it is supposed to work, but it has been hijacked from its original purpose and turned into an ideological taboo, so we lost that as well. "I told you so" is our only remaining weapon, and it's a retaliation type of weapon, not a world-saving one.
bloomingkales 2y ago
I just try to contribute something as best as I can. I don’t use cars for example. It won’t change my life or the world, but it’s a little pollution I can commit to removing. Working on reducing meat, just one more thing I can commit to removing (unnecessary death, I’m not that hungry). Even a 10% reduction. The rest is on the universe.
- alganet 2y ago
  I also don't use or own cars. I use my stuff until it breaks. I mend my own clothes instead of buying new ones whenever I can (even to the point of looking like a hobo). However, I despise hypocritical "ecology" stickers in products. Specially when those stickers are attached to products designed for obsolescense (looking at you, Apple). I am also fully aware that companies are the largest pollutors, not me. They'll do whatever they can to shift the blame to the consumer.

Honestly? Yes. It won't matter either way at this point, even if we reach net zero worldwide we're still more or less screwed since it's a positive feedback loop in terms of albedo (until all the ice is gone anyway) and the oceans have absorbed enough CO2 to keep emitting it for a long while if atmospheric levels drop. Any actual solutions would involve increasing reflectivity though artificial means, i.e. aerosol geoengineering.

The_Colonel 2y ago
> we're still more or less screwed "less screwed" here means "fewer dead people". I think it matters how much screwed are we. BTW this is the exact switcheroo I expect from the climate deniers - first it was "climate change doesn't exist, why should I limit my consumption?", when it's too undeniable they're going to switch in a second to "too late to do anything about it, why should I limit my consumption?"
- moffkalast 2y ago
  It certainly matters how screwed we are, but a single person eating less meat and taking the bus more often isn't going to make any impact whatsoever when everyone else maintains business as usual. Laws and tax incentives need to drive it first and foremost, but as usual with these things it's too little, too late. Systemic change is what matters and it's all too common that "personal responsibility" is the talking point of corporations who greenwash their operation through buying cheap fake carbon offsets to relieve themselves of any responsibility while outputting more CO2 than a small nation on a daily basis, making sure to simultaneously blame everyone else as much as possible to divert attention.
  - The_Colonel 2y ago
    > but a single person eating less meat That's the same old Tragedy of the Commons argument, which is valid no matter if we're screwed or have a decent chance at solving the crisis. Using this logic, it's irrational to even vote since you waste your time on something which with all probability will have 0 effect. > Systemic change is what matters That's true, but how do you get a systemic change? By influencing individual voting and consumption behavior. Global warming has been started and is still driven the most by democratic countries, you can't absolve yourself of the responsibility. Corporations are a product of the system we've built. They'll never care about the environment, they're not designed to do that. They care about the legal framework, though, which we (in democratic countries) can influence. The hard pill to swallow is that forcing corporations to care about the environment will increase their costs and thus prices of goods and services.
    - moffkalast 2y ago
      It's very much tragedy of the commons, but say with the classical example of wells on a combined finite water source, using less water won't make it last longer when you represent a permille of the total consumption, and you are only really hurting yourself by not using it while it still exists. Meanwhile the bottling plant next door pumps half of it for free and sells to back to you with a label that says "save water". A single vote can change nothing or change everything depending on the overall distribution. If the public opinion is 80% towards one candidate and 20% for the other, even 30% of the votes wouldn't matter. If it's extremely polarized like 50/50 then every vote does indeed make a difference (Gore vs. Bush, topically enough lol). The problem with climate change is that it's more like 95% of people doing nothing cause they just want to live a normal life, and 5% of people trying to do something in a futile way. In the end it doesn't matter if a few million choose to cut down on consumption when the end result is exactly the same in an ocean of billions. > how do you get a systemic change? By influencing individual voting and consumption behavior. That's more like a democratic fantasy, believing that most people would even chose to to the right thing if given the option, instead of the most convenient thing. No, you get it by lobbying key people who have the power to enact change on a massive scale. As you say, corporations only care about legal means and they make sure those means stay in their favor. One might argue that if enough people can be persuaded to stop using a product (e.g. gasoline) then the production of it will lower, but in lots of cases that's a fallacy as well, since the producer will move against an existential threat to itself with all the means at their disposal, PR, legal, or even less legal. And in a sufficiently large market, any impact a single person can make is again a drop in the ocean.
alganet 2y ago
If we reach net zero emissions on this decade I think we have a chance. It sounds implausible, but much more plausible than deus ex-machina solutions like aerosols.

alganet 2y ago

I don't know. I still care, but I'm in no position to change anything. Even if I was, I wouldn't be sure on what to do about it. I see the current state of personal ecology (I will change one drop of water in the stream!) as a placebo. It's psychologic engineering more than ecology, and I understand how it is supposed to work, but it has been hijacked from its original purpose and turned into an ideological taboo, so we lost that as well. "I told you so" is our only remaining weapon, and it's a retaliation type of weapon, not a world-saving one.

bloomingkales 2y ago

I just try to contribute something as best as I can. I don’t use cars for example. It won’t change my life or the world, but it’s a little pollution I can commit to removing. Working on reducing meat, just one more thing I can commit to removing (unnecessary death, I’m not that hungry). Even a 10% reduction. The rest is on the universe.

alganet 2y ago
I also don't use or own cars. I use my stuff until it breaks. I mend my own clothes instead of buying new ones whenever I can (even to the point of looking like a hobo). However, I despise hypocritical "ecology" stickers in products. Specially when those stickers are attached to products designed for obsolescense (looking at you, Apple). I am also fully aware that companies are the largest pollutors, not me. They'll do whatever they can to shift the blame to the consumer.