• The world has barely 10 years to get climate change under control
    132 replies, posted
How about instead of moping and doping around and wondering what could happen when in fact you should act on improving and spreading to word? The world isn't going to change when we complain about it. Call your statesman, you vegetarian friends, your gardener, anyone really. Make it the best ten years of planet Earth's life because I sure as shit am not going to let my family live in a shitty Earth when I'm 30. I'm sorry but the amount of mope and angst makes me want to slit my wrists.
Which is also a very effective way of reducing your carbon footprint I might add.
Pretending that everybody eating less meat and taking 5 minute showers is going to fix the environment is delusional. The blame rests squarely upon industries we have little to no control over. And we can't vote with our wallets since many are necessities or unavoidable.
Remember to never cum in a vagina, that's the greatest contribution to carbon emissions you can make.
If that's true, then you'll never get enough people to vote for ecologists in the first place. The best approach remains to both put pressure on politicians regarding the issue and reducing our individual impact. Do we really need to have this conversation once again? This is bullshit that I've debunked several times over already, and you know that.
This kind of cringy, edgy, defeatist attitude is part of the reason why we are where we are. It's counterproductive and ridiculously hyperbolic. The world isn't going to end in 10 years. It'll get shitty, sure. Famine and natural disasters will become an increasing problem. Is our planet UTTERLY DOOMED and are we all going to keel over and die when "the clock runs out"? No.
Did you just assume my carbon footprint?
We have to cut down meat consumption for one, notably beef, but too bad most people flat out refuse to change a thing and go "but it taste so good i'm not gonna give up my meat it's great family fun too for grilling parties and we eat meat every day anyway and I'm also a massive dumb-fuck who doesn't realize I don't have to give it up completely, just reduce it and explore some other ingredients to cook with but no, not gonna do that." - your average idiot
Tell that to Africa. Their population is expected to grow by FOUR BILLION.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/237427/e137ad12-6336-484b-8454-0b9d4b67e22d/image.png
That's local pollution and NOx, not the same thing as greenhouse gas emissions, and another issue entirely. They don't die of exposure to CO2. When it comes to CO2, the average US citizen emits 2.3 times as much as the average Chinese citizen. So yeah, unless you live a lifestyle that's less than half as polluting as your average American, you do pollute more than the average Chinese.
And massive amounts of Chinese citizens live in bumfuck nowhere
I am not one for just giving up but realistically, what can we do, the carbon emissions is a large part of governments and industries we don't have direct control over, electorates and mindsets take time to change, time we don't have, and thanks to cognitive bias, pushing it only drives science-illiterate further away. Decreasing our individual carbon footprint and going out to protest sounds fine and dandy, but we share this with people who won't care or even a tiny majority who will make it worse, our protesting voices can be ignored, our potential decreased individual footprint is a drop in a bucket. Turning this shit around takes societal, economic and political changes on a rapid and never before seen scale, the probability of which is near impossible. I am all for taking on measures to stop this impending catastrophe, but I am not content of doing some small feel-good actions that won't impact anything meaningful in the big picture. Unfortunately the power of a single individual is always severely limited and I'm afraid humanity will have to see some major damage in order to get our collective heads out of our collective asses.
The biggest problem I can see with China and other nations with a growing middle class is the increase in animal agriculture necessary for their increased demand in meat consumption.
Demonstrably false. So what? Those people don't cancel out the efforts the rest would make in reducing their impact. Ignored by some, not by others. It does serve a purpose regardless. And water in a bucket is simply a collection of drops. What's your point? But individuals collectively striving for a common goal aren't. Seriously, this "individual don't have much power on their own" argument is so stupid. Do you apply this to politics as well? Do you not go out to vote because "my single vote won't change the outcome"? This misses the point completely.
10 years for billionaires to use up all the planet's resources and then at the point of no return state some bullshit like "Oh nooo,we had no idea that was going to happen!"
Yes and no, there has to be a huge substantial increase of people giving up or eating less meat, not drive cars, opt for renewable energy sources, not use plastics etc. Which is near to impossible, because people give more shit about day to day lives then 20 to 30 years in the future. The world population is largely made of developing nations. And plastic is a huge problem, because of a lack of understanding and they see their daily needs more importantly. You're not going to convince a convenience store in the middle of bumfuck nowhere in India or Thailand to give up plastic use, or plastic utensils because they want to make money. Unless the government is willing to provide rural people with biodegradable materials, they couldn't give a shit. I worked in Thailand for some time, mainly in rural areas. They don't give a damn about the environment. Money is an important factor in poorer countries, and they burn their trash because it just 'disappears' and they do not have the infrastructure to have a garbage truck to come collect their trash. In addition, they gotta pay extra tax for the garbage disposal to come. I remembered photographing a school releasing fishes into the ocean to keep the population in check, and right behind is a whole pile of plastic bottles trash right behind. Talk about irony. Meat is the main source of protein for rural people, and you're gonna have a hard time convincing rural areas to give up pork or chicken for non meat alternatives. Its easy for us to judge and tell people to change when we live in the comforts of a first world city, but the reality for alot of poorer countries is alot more different than the things we can change about our lifestyles.
Guess who runs the US
...And the populations of developing nations still emit several orders less greenhouse gases than the populations of developed nations. Rural people in developing nations don't eat meat twice a day in the first place, for instance. They have to do a lot less efforts than us to reduce their individual emissions to acceptable levels. We are by and large the ones that contribute the most to climate change, and thus we are those with the most power to curb it. So no, people of the first world cutting down on their excesses and finding alternatives would greatly contribute to lessening the impact of climate change, regardless of whether the developing world follows in our footsteps. Besides, a huge consumer base turning to sustainable ways of life will cheapen those solutions through sheer scale, making those solutions more profitable for developing nations to use in turn.
don't have kids, folks
I'd much rather go for the "Breed less, adopt more" sort of approach. There are plenty of kids out there who were dealt a bad hand and deserve better living standards.
Your whole argument hinges on the mere possibility that we somehow all come to our senses collectively. Our entire global livelihood is built on these wasteful ways, and even in democracies where 33% to 50% of the population can be apathetic or just want to keep the status quo going, we have interest groups, global lobbyist efforts and even some entire nations working against global climate change measures, what possible way that doesn't include enormous acts of force do you see to get out of this pickle, I just don't see it happening. We had a long time to see it coming and humanity as large has been twiddling their thumbs, I don't wanna downplay our technological advances, but human beings often act when it is too late. And yes I do go vote and to protests but so far my impact has been negligible, so excuse me that I don't buy into your "optimistic" prospects. There is the tiniest of chances, but so far some demonstrably large damage is already inevitable.
10 Years? Damn 20 more and we’d at least have all those old boys making horrible decisions, dead. Although I suppose a new string of old boys would just take their place.
Whether large damage is inevitable is irrelevant. Reducing our emissions by taking individual responsibility will lessen the impact of climate change either way. It simply is fucking useless to wonder whether the efforts we make will be sufficient to avoid a 2°C increase, because we simply have to do the best we can, period. Worst case scenario, the best isn't enough, but it will still mitigate the results and save lives. It beats doing jack shit and getting the worst consequences we possibly can. Which is why I despise the people, of which there are plenty in this thread, who falsely claim that it's useless to personally reduce one's carbon emissions, and who put the entirety of the blame on industries while doing no effort themselves to refrain from relying on them. They're completely irrational, and are just trying to find excuses to do nothing out of laziness. They are part of the problem, despite their insistance on blaming others.
Time to stop paying off my student loans 🙏
We need to price greenhouse emissions into the economy. We need a carbon tax and/or a cap and trade plan. That way people are punished economically for releasing damaging gasses.
Personally I don't care what kind of a barren wasteland I'm bringing a child into. Maybe the world is fixed by then. But I do want a child and give a child a chance to live, work, enjoy or otherwise survive in this world, no matter the surrounding circumstances. Does that alone make me selfish? So be it. Do I still agree in trying to reduce emissions to make the world a better place for living? Absolutely.
The World No, the same few people at the top and those running the mega corps that can and still done fuck all. I mean they're don't the incredible job of banning straws! But yeah, there isn't anything I can really do except say I'm pissed and want shit to be done but nothing I can do in the next 10 years will really make a difference, sadly.
Pathetic denial of responsibility, as usual. You lot keep saying that only the rich and powerful are responsible for this and can make a change, even though virtually every kg of human generated CO2 can be traced back to the consumer base. But I suppose you wouldn't have made that post if you could be bothered to read the thread in the first place. Real fucking lame.
Seriously I agree. Worse will always be better than worst so if you guys want to live in hell, that’s fine. But I’d Rather you not fuck it up for the rest of us. Life is full of awful things, but if your attitude is hopelessness then you’re to blame.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.