We just hit 1.5 C above per-industrial levels for the first time.
Data released from Copernicus, a branch of the European Union Space Programme, shows August was 1.59C warmer than 1850–1900 levels, following a 1.6C increase in July.
您正在查看单个对话串。
Is there anything i could/can do to make a difference?
Apart from the voting which is above all else, if you REALLY want to do something on an individual basis, you should reduce your meat or become a vegetarian. It seems that's what experts claim has the biggest impact. Apart from that, don't have children, or 2 at most.
There are other things you can do individually as well, like try using the car and AC less, and generally live more frugally.
But remember that 100 companies make up 71% of all human made carbon emissions. It's good to act locally, but we need global action to stop these companies and their supporters, that means voting for competent government.
The bulk of those companies are in the energy business and they respond to consumer demand. Chevron isn’t out there drilling, extracting, refining, and burning oil for no reason.
they respond to consumer demand.
they DICTATE consumer options.
They will respond faster to heavy regulations/taxation, national policy shifts towards renewable energies, fossil fuel bans and nationalisation/forced liquidation.
No individual is their primary customer, and doesn't have the negotiating power to affect them, they are effectively Mega corps, and immune even to certain national laws.
Vote for a government that will affect them, the other meaningful option (for individuals) is sabotage/Eco-terrorism, which isn't really a long-term solution.
When the parties on offer are various flavours of neoliberalism, as in most capitalist countries these days, it doesn't give you any options that will make a difference quick enough. They simply can't do what needs to be done within that economic framework.
That said, vote for the least worst one. But the most significant things have to be done outside of that electoral framework, because it can't resist the demands of short-term profit.
Please don't have children. Think about the life you're condemning them to.
this is sadly where my head is at.
Yup, my wife and I both want kids.
We're now pretty set on adoption.
Adoption is great!
this message brought to you by eugenicists against english literacy. english literacy: if it didn't make you sterile, it should have.
If we don't have children because we care for our planet, we leave the world to those who don't care at all. Not sure if this is the right decision.
Same with atheism, religious people have more children, so the religious population is increasing, despite people deconverting.
Honestly, I haven't thought of it like that. I guess that's a decent point. But having more than 2 children, and you are part of the problem.
My family had one kid. So we went from I believe seven grandparents and great aunts and uncles down to one child just within two generations!
At this rate my family could depopulate the whole planet in no time.
Also a friend of mine just told me that he met a lady who had 22 siblings so...
adoption
sounds like you're advocating for BOTH eugenics AND brainwashing. please reconsider.
Yes, adoption is literally eugenics AND brainwashing, you are very smart.
who are you saying shouldn't have children? whose children are you proposing to teach to care for the planet?
I never said anyone shouldn't have children.
whose children are you proposing to teach to care for the planet?
children up for adoption
I never said anyone shouldn’t have children.
you're right, but the conversation was definitely about eugenics propaganda. if you're not saying "don't have children" then i really apologize, but the tone of the conversation seemed to be "don't have kids. you can adopt instead!"
so you'll adopt them and brainwash them into an ideology. it just doesn't have a good ring.
"brainwash them into an ideology" excellent leap my dude
if you're not in favor of that, then i say "good". you'll forgive me for reading the room to say something else though.
Why vegetarian, not vegan? Cows are a major contributor to the emissions, and people tend to increase their dairy consumption when going vegetarian.
One step at a time.
Going vegetarian doesn't seem to be the most impactful when you look at the numbers, as per this video. Vegan diets still have the lowest GHG footprint and GWP of all diets.
That being said, I went vegetarian first before going vegan. So your point is entirely valid.
Honestly I wasn't aware the difference is that big. I thought cows were bad mostly for the meat, but apparently milk is at least as bad. 🤥
That sucks. ☹️
If you want to see what the heck veganism is about compared to vegetarianism, check this resource out.
But yeah! Leather is also bad for the same reason, contributing to the same industry. There are alternatives out there so don't feel bad!
One step at a time, like you've mentioned in your other comments.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/y9R6yJj5RO0?si=-bqRIP1zQKv0m5lG
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
reduce your meat or become a vegetarian
i'm dubious about this. don't get me wrong: i try to make sure at least half my calories come from soylent. i'm saying i have looked at the methodology, and it doesn't seem sound. HAVING READ THE RELEVANT STUDIES it's not clear to me that the researchers are even drawing correct conclusions.
here's an example that i think can be extrapolated across many data points: cotton seed. first, cotton is grown for textiles. like, exclusively. like, the only reason to grow cotton is for textiles. BUT you can increase the profits from your cotton harvest if you sell the seed to cattle operations. so cattle are fed cottonseed. then the water and land-use costs of cotton get rolled into the costs of raising cattle. but that's nonsensical. cottonseed is purely waste product, and giving it to cattle CONSERVES resources.
soybeans are another thing altogether, and the complexity of the whole agricultural system implies, to me at least, that maybe it's not so simple as "reduce your meat intake".
I must admit it''s not super intuitive to me either, but it seems the consensus is pretty strong among experts, and I haven't taken the time to really delve in deep on the issue.
But apparently a significant part of the problem is that cows make a lot of methane, that is a very bad greenhouse gas, and when it breaks down it's to CO2 which is still a greenhouse gas. So kind of a bad double dip as I understand it.
There are no peaceful ways to make a difference. Change my mind.
Shall i give fatwa for Green Jihad?
You seem like more of a mauve hajji, if I'm being honest. You're definitely a fall.
See if that rpg comes in teal and ooh girl
chefs kiss
Depends on your definition of peaceful. Industrial sabotage that specifically targets unmanned equipment would still be peaceful by my definition, for example.
Vote!
This, it's the only thing that really counts, we all need to pull together, the only way to do that, is to vote in politicians that actually give a shit.
Do any really, though?
Oh boy not the false equivalence again. If you don't give a shit yourself then don't vote.
It makes a difference who gets the power, and your main influence is your power to vote.
I always do vote for the party with most proactive views on climate change.
I just feel really jaded that they are going to make much of a difference, short term capitalistic gains seem more important to all
Edit - I’m also beginning to feel that voting isn’t my most powerful move. Disruptive protests are looking better and better.
Voting is the absolute smallest political action anyone could ever take. Protest always has been and always will be more effective at moving the needle. Above all else these ghouls want to preserve capitalism. If it looks like the only way they preserve capitalism in the near term is capitulating to the demands of environmentalists then that is what will happen. Of course in the long term capitalists will attempt to erode these gains just like they have done with social safety nets in various countries for largely the same reasons (increased rate of profit).
You're right, voting isn't the most powerful thing you can do.
It's getting involved in politics altogether, getting more people to vote.
And not "We got the president and maybe a senator" vote. The crowd that's fighting climate change every step of the way has infested all the way down to the local levels making it harder to vote on the national platforms. I'd say this is a US thing, but if there's voting, they seem to be infesting all of it.
It may not be the most powerful for all, but for most it is.
Just don't go along with something like Just Stop Oil, that's not constructive or helpful in any way, and it's off-putting for the vast majority tiring people of the issue, rather than waking their interest.
Yes, some that really give a shit might not be a part of a major party in whatever country you live in, but even among established parties there are people who are more inclined to do something about the climate catastrophe than others.
Honestly, I'm pretty sure the deficit we could create on an individual basis will just be used by companies instead, so I'm just gonna agree with the others on voting being the most effective method of making a difference.
As others have said, voting is important. But also I'd guess that direct action will play a large role in the next few decades.
the next few decades
An optimist, I see!
We are a hardy bunch. But things are going to get very ugly.
Google the weather underground
Some changes people (in the US or elsewhere) might want to check into:
If we all stop breathing at the same time...
Don't procreate. Or if you do just yeet the baby into a furnace to skip a few steps, same outcome really.
