Global warming appears to have shifted into a faster gear. After removing the effects of El Niño, volcanic eruptions, and solar cycles, researchers found that the planet has warmed at roughly 0.35°C per decade over the past ten years, compared with just under 0.2°C per decade from 1970 to 2015. The acceleration, which becomes visible around 2013 to 2015, appeared across five major global temperature datasets with more than 98% statistical certainty.
There is some hope if we chip at it as much as we can. No action is too small:
If we convince ourselves we are screwed, we ll give up. Be the hero of your own story. YOU DO NOT NEED TO GET IT 100% RIGHT. Any improvement is improvement. We all live different lives, and the economy is hard on alot of us.
I believe:)
No way… billionaires with yachts and private planes releasing more carbon in an afternoon then I use in a lifetime and I’M the one you think should wipe his ass with bamboo… get the fuck out of here. Eat the rich then tell me I’m not doing enough because I eat a burger and use proper toilet paper
No. Just no.
This is not an “individual action will solve this” case anymore. WE can’t do jack about it, individually. If we get the corporations to stop doing harm, and the rich cut down traveling in their superjets, maybe then. But some schmuck driving a Toyota corolla a few hundred miles on a vacation, or taking a commercial passenger jet on a vacation with 100-some-odd people isn’t the problem here.
Significant parts of the global climate usage are directly tied to individual actions. 12% is consumer car driving alone. So yes, the schmuck driving a Toyota Corolla is making a significant impact. The sooner you realize that the better, we need action on both corporation and end users.
Every single person is part of the problem. Some more, some less. Corporations do not harm the environment because they are inherently bad. They do it because people (all of them!) love stuff.
Individual action was a myth designed by FF companies to shift responsibility
This is true but individual action is still necessary. Just because it’s important that we hold corporations and the wealthy accountable and curb industrialized pollution doesn’t mean that the average person isn’t needing to make significant changes. We can’t both maintain a consumer mindset and abdicate individual responsibility while also demanding sweeping societal changes.
And you think it’s the “demanding sweeping societal changes” that has to go?
Maybe we need to start with the individualism and “consumer mindset”?
We can consume the wealthy and abdicate them of the responsibility of carrying on and also demand change. Especially if we consume them while they’re still alive, as a mob, and do it with dull forks.
The survivors will be far more willing to listen.
Lol. I don’t think anyone reading this is going to stop the minimal traveling they do in the short breaks from The Grind that they get while dipshit rich people are yachting and jetting all over the planet. And they shouldn’t. Average people shouldn’t have to give up any travelling whatsoever because their budgets prevent them from doing enough to actually cause significant harm anyway. We need to use force to make the real culprits adjust their habits.
Other than that I fully agree.
“I don’t think I’ll super size it after all”, I saw as I drive past the MegaCity One GigaChad data center.
Unfortunately, you missed the mark. The individual is not the problem and will not make an iota of difference.
Billionaires are the enemy. They are useless. They are pitting the average citizen against one another. There is no good billionaire.
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaires-emit-more-carbon-pollution-90-minutes-average-person-does-lifetime
12% of global emissions are individual car drivers alone. The individual is a sizable portion of the problem, and we need a multi pronged approach that attacks corporations outsized impact and reduces certain emissions from individuals as well.
deleted by creator
The kys comedy is too low hanging fruit nowadays. Do better.
deleted by creator
If we dont support billioniares business is, and turned “the individual” into an organized mass, it would work.
I dont know if this opinion, to change using amazon and the other big retailers, will ever come though. I saw someone legit promoting aliexpress for a product not too long ago, and I was surprised no one gave them shit for it.
If Working for and using, for example, amazon, was suddenly shamed and everyone stopped using it, it would stop making the billionaire at the top money. If no one buys the product, no one is willing to work for the company, the company would disolve. bezos still wouldnt be broke, or held to account, but this revenue stream would stop.
Will it happen though? I feel like a nhilist for saying, I dont think so.
Jevon’s Paradox
The bidet gang would like a word with you.
(Seriously though: I agree that every action counts, but I also think that, even if the majority of the population followed that list perfectly, the globalized corporate structure would still be operating in such a way that the personal impact wouldn’t be noticeable. When agriculture produces more than what’s sold, they have no issue dumping the items that don’t sell into the ground. Clothing outlets will shred unsold merch instead of giving it away. The waste is built into the system and a structural change is needed NOW if we are to survive.)
If there was a decline in consumption of climate harming products, large enough that these companies could see it in thier financial reports, I cant believe it wouldnt have any effect on the market.
Youre points are valid, and I agree with them, but if a majority wanted to (ideally, and I dont think they will) I think “voting with our wallet” would work, it is simple, but not practical because humans seem to love convience.
Correct. Convenience is just too important. Also status symbols because people just want to be seen as big/successful/important/… regardless if that damages things.
and yes, more putting the onus on us, when all of our individual yearly pollution barely amounts to a day of pollution released by average industry.
You know it was industrial propaganda that started the whole personal responsibility thing to begin with right? to shift blame away from themselves and onto you and me.
I mean, yeah, you can make yourself feel good by reducing, but its doing fuckall compared to industrial release.
I understand the sentiment, but doesn’t “the industry” essentially produce things that are for “us”, even if indirectly?
Factories don’t exist for their own sake, they exist to make an end product for people. So if you want to change that, we do need to consume less, like the parent you replied to said.
CEOs burning tons of fuel riding luxury jets does nothing for us. AI data centers clamoring for more electricity will do nothing for us.
I get what you’re saying. It’s a both are true type of thing in my opinion. Our impact pales in comparison to the ultra wealthy. What gets left out of the conversation is that the AI data centres, factories, and transport trucks exist because there is demand. Each and every one of us is part of that demand and by significantly changing our lifestyles we can change our demands.
Your argument is valid though, the wealthy need to be the first to reduce their demand and by the most. Also that they’re not going to do that without the threat of state violence, just like we’re obligated to be lawful on the threat of state violence. It’s just that we’re not absolve of our contribution to climate change because the ultra wealthy have contributed more.
The point I poorly made, is that it’s capitalists/capital interests, the uber rich and techno-fascists that are clamoring for AI. It’s not “EVERYONE.”
Demand for a thing doesn’t mean that the poor and rich are demanding the thing equally.
The point I poorly made was the uber rich, and their greed are driving global warming far more than your average person.
I recycled like a good little soldier through the 80’s, 90’s, 2000’s, 2010’s and early 2020’s, only to find out that much of our plastic waste was just sold to third world countries rather than ACTUALLY being recycled. I’ve eliminated plastic everywhere I can in my life, and reuse it until it degrades and it’s got to be tossed.
I keep my thermostat set at 62 in the winter, and 78 in the summer to reduce my demand for electricity, even though these aren’t comfortable temperatures, they are tolerable. I already eat a primarily vegetarian diet, not because I want to, but because I am being priced out of meat. I repair my shoes and clothes to get a second life out of them. I don’t own a car and ride a bicycle. (Before I moved closer to work I’d average 45 miles a day between commute and errands on the way home.)
Corporate interests have actively hampered transitions to greener energy and public transportation, and bicycle infrastructure, (at least in the USA where I am.)
The point I am trying to make here is that the poor, and lower middle class don’t have large footprints to begin with, and have reduced consumption due to inflation and shit pay. Corporate interests and the uber wealthy are the biggest drivers of climate change.
Frankly, I’m tired of the powers that be trying to make me feel shame for fucking breathing because they think it contributes to global warming.
No. They produce for income. For brand imaging. To keep shelf space and maintain market presence.
And they do that by producing significantly more than the market requires. More than customers would ever want to buy.
They do it by making low quality slop products that they specifically engineer to be as unrepairable as possible, to fail as soon as they can get away with it, to force consumers to buy replacements more frequently than they would ever want to.
Do you go to the store and go “Wow, I wish this brand would generate more waste to take up shelf space so (competitor) cant have it?”
Do you look at a brand and go “I will only support this company if it fills the landfills every 3 months with perfectly usable products?”
Do you go “Wow, I wanna pay 500 dollars for this device thats gonna fail in 18 months and need to be replaced, because repairing it is gonna cost so much that its better just to get a new one again”?
Do you go “god, I like this product, I really hope entire communities lost their access to clean water to cool the AI’s that generated the design?”
No?
Neither do I.
Because they don’t serve the interest of the customer. They serve the market, which has taken a life of its own (which is especially apparently with the AI scam bubble, where companies keep making promises to buy future products from each other with the same imaginary trillion dollars that keeps getting passed around, generating endless imaginary value without producing anything… and when the AI bubble pops, its going to crash harder than the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs)
If they served the interests of the customers, they’d keep prices low, and pay high, and produce quality goods that people would have the money to buy.
By putting the burden on the end consumer for climate change and pollution, they are escaping blame, and are allowed to continue to pollute and accelerate the decline of our climate. Its like blaming you for growing a tomato, while ignoring the industrial farm that mowed down 2 million acres of south american rainforest to produce alfalfa for saudi horses.
If people stop buying a thing, any company that wants money is going to stop making that thing.
They have no financial incentive to pay the cost of manufacturing if they can’t sell their widget.
I never said they were altruistic. I’m saying: at the end of the line, there is a consumer buying the stuff they polluted for.
PREACH. Can I get a hallelujah!
I don’t think you should think about it in terms of blame, I think that’s a big part of the propaganda. Seeding of anger, frustration, and apathy. Rather than allowing empowerment, organizing, and hope.
Blame should only be reserved for those that act with careless disregard. And doing things that are good for the environment shouldn’t be seen as ‘paying back’. You are actively doing more than you should and letting your actions speak louder than your words. And those actions can (and should) be part of building the collective that will force those truly responsible from stopping.
That’s my one wish for lists like OP posted. It should always contain that the only lasting change is organizing.
This sounds like some empty corporate focus tested “Don’t blame us, its not our fault” BS.
Did you respond to the wrong person?EDIT: Okay, you’re responding elsewhere, so you’re just not going to respond to leaving a nonsensical but also kind of vile comment? Crazy, considering I was mostly agreeing with you, other than saying you shouldn’t accept the propagandized idea that people are or should be doing something to make up for some perceived guilt. Rather than doing it to empower themselves and foster collective action.industry doesn’t need to pump out so much product if we consume less
Industry doesnt need to overproduce so much product right now, but it does, and sends tons of it to landfill every quarter
So if its already doing it, what makes you think they’ll stop doing it if sales reduce a few % points.
I was coming here to say this how does traveling less make a difference when a million (unknown if a true number but I didn’t look up how many trucks are in the USA) semi trucks are on the road every day (and the rest of the world too). None of those things even significantly reduce anything until industry stops wasting so much. J just look at the food and retail products thrown away every day. Dumpsters full all across the country, all that pollution to produce some shit and they just throw it away
EDIT: WHOOPS! Wrong comment.
Where did I even allude to that?
I very clearly laid out where the problem is that we have to deal with. Which is the actual drivers of climate change. Not you choosing to drive to work instead of walking 8 miles in the heat.
I replied to the wrong comment. My bad, dude.
No worries.
Your first point is so huge IMO. If you can’t enjoy being at your own home then trying to have some kind of fulfilling life is going to be a steeper uphill battle than it already was.
Look at it like the Buddhists and stoics. Thinking your happiness is out there waiting on some beach, or in some fancy car or McMansion, is only going to perpetuate your suffering in the actual real now.
Or put another way, if you decide to find happiness and fulfillment in your home and your local community, and it works, then THEY can’t stop you. Whoever that is in your case.
Been on the dating apps recently. The number of people who present “travel” as their entire personality is unsettling. Every photo somewhere exotic, every prompt answer is about traveling. It makes me wonder what they’re all running from. I don’t disagree that vacationing can be enjoyable, but there’s more to life.
And don’t get me started on the people who try to say that “traveling” is different from “vacationing” and that what they’re doing is travelling and not vacationing. Egads.
Prolly they all live in a big city. And living in a big city sucks ass, but most people have no choice because that’s where the jobs are. I luckily live outside a big city in small village with forests and fields around me. But still near enough a medium-sized city so that I don’t have to commute for ages. But I see that not everyone can live in places like mine, so the big city it is, where it is loud and full. Kinda understandable that u want to get away from it, then. But yeah, it doesn’t mean that u need to fly to other side of the earth to do vacation, usually your own country has enough pretty spots to spend ur vacation.
Sure, we can do that, but keep in mind that unilateral individual actions will not make the difference, all you can do is trying to create more broad awareness, form coalition and support for tighter laws and regulation, in order to have meaningful effect.
Also avoid blaming or moralizing individuals for their own choices, this will cause fatigue and infighting, which will distract from focus on policy change.
If we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide today, crashing the world economy in the process, we would still have to deal with the same temperature levels we have right now. We not only need to reduce emissions, but we now have to reverse it. Nothing short of an immediate global transition to nuclear power and/or nuclear fusion coming online will stop what is happening.
ftfy
Also, nobody alive today will see the effect of any reversing we do in our time, even if we manage to find something and start tomorrow. But it’ll get much worse if we do nothing.
"If all human emissions of heat-trapping gases were to stop today, Earth’s temperature would continue to rise for a few decades as ocean currents bring excess heat stored in the deep ocean back to the surface. Once this excess heat radiated out to space, Earth’s temperature would stabilize. Experts think the additional warming from this “hidden” heat is unlikely to exceed 0.9° Fahrenheit (0.5°Celsius). With no further human influence, natural processes would begin to slowly remove the excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and global temperatures would gradually begin to decline.
It’s true that without dramatic action in the next couple of decades, we are unlikely to keep global warming in this century below 2.7° Fahrenheit (1.5° Celsius) compared to pre-industrial temperatures—a threshold that experts say offers a lower risk of serious negative impacts. But the more we overshoot that threshold, the more serious and widespread the negative impacts will be, which means that it is never “too late” to take action."
Source: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/global-warming-frequently-asked-questions#hide28
And you trust an American government website… Why?
And vote. Pay attention to issues and vote. Don’t get caught up in a single issue, or voting with emotions or spite: vote for your future
Taylor Swift’s jets alone cancel out any benefit all of your steps might have for a few million or hundreds of millions of people.
It’s wonderful to want to try to do something about this, but the only real way we have to do something about it is to stop the people and corporations who are the actual biggest contributors to the issue.
I’m thinking less along the lines of voting and more along the lines of stabbing.
Come on. You’re off by multiple orders of magnitude. No, a single private plane is not offsetting millions or hundreds of millions of people living more sustainably. I’m genuinely not sure if you’re this clueless or just trying to manipulate opinions.
Plus, emissions are additive, so you can avoid your own emissions, while doing what you can to keep billionaires in check.
I tend of assume someone being off thousands of orders of magnitude about something is using hyperbole. You didn’t even mention the possibility. Seeing one example of an incorrect ratio and leaping clear to being torn between deciding if the person who said it is a complete idiot or some insidious evil force manipulating folks is enough to qualify you to wear a cape.
I appreciate you. Thank you for posting that thoughtful and insightful comment.
You’re awesome.