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.
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.
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 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.
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!”
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.
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.
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 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.
Removed by mod
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.
children up for adoption
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
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.
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.