The world has barely 10 years to get climate change under control
132 replies, posted
The absolute best thing you can do to reduce emissions is not have kids.
While industry is a major contributor, relatively small changes in your lifestyle can still have a pretty major impact - for example, meat makes up about 18% of your calories but takes up 83% of global farmland, which is pretty nuts.
"It's fucked, we're all doomed" thinking doesn't help anyone, let alone yourself, and just forces you into a negative feedback spiral - there's a special irony to saying "I'm not going to change because no one else will", be the change you want to see.
Sorry guys, but I just don't see it happening.
Of course small changes in people's lifestyles could potentially have a major impact if enough individuals reduced their carbon footprint, but you are never going to get enough people to do so to even get to a point where it matters. This doesn't hinge on people like me either, i.e. people who tried to help in the past but have given up due to increasingly bad odds. It hinges on all kinds of factors.
The majority of the earth's population doesn't even know that climate change is happening. Do you really think, if you asked some random dude in bumfuck nowhere South America, Russia or China, that they are going to know or care what Climate Change is? As it stands, the issue is something only people in relatively wealthy countries even know, let alone care about.
Most of those who do know about climate change simply don't think about it on a day-to-day basis. This may not be due to malicious reasons, but simply because there is absolutely no immediate incentive to acknowledge it. "My life's good right now! Why should I care?". These people may give you weird looks and dismiss you if you suggest that they should reduce their meat consumption. They may even mock you and see you as a crazy environmentalist vegan or something. Reducing your carbon footprint is generally something that reduces your quality of life, and as it stands, most people simply see no reason to inconvenience themselves. The science might indicate that our civilization will collapse if we keep going like this -- but nobody's going to willingly admit that; not even the scientists who create these models. If you tell people that shit is fucked and that they need to change ASAP, they will just dismiss you and call you a fear-monger and some kind of doomsday fanatic who shouldn't be taken seriously.
Then there's people who can't actually reduce their carbon footprint, either due to risking their lifelihoods or some other reason. You can't stop people driving cars in the USA, because in most cases there are no other means of transport to get people to their workplace. Maybe you have some Trump-supporting jackass in your family who will make your life a living hell if you try to get active against climate change. Maybe reducing your meat consumption isn't possible because you are subconciously addicted to it. Things aren't always as easy as flicking a switch unfortunately.
Then there's those that actively deny climate change and, worse even, do everything in their power to ensure that the environment is destroyed. These are the likes of Trump, Farage, and that fucking Brazilian cunt that's going to remove all protections on the Amazon rainforest with great likelihood. After all, they have a moral requirement to make money, and won't pass that up at any cost.
Note however that you don't generally need to be stupid or ignorant to be part of this group. There's a professor at the Federal Institute of Technology of Switzerland that told his colleagues to take a much higher number of flights than usual in the current year, simply because the measurements would be used as a base for reducing flight emissions in the following years. The goal, of course, was to look good in subsequent years without actually having reduced your flight emissions at all. Not even the educated apparently care about the implications of climate change, and will even actively perpetuate it in the name of profit and convenience.
Those who do actively try to fight climate change generally have a bad reputation, for reasons aforementioned. These are icky, yucky people that will try to take my joys and freedoms away! These disgusting vegans! Fun fact: I am part of a student union that works closely together with a student sustainability commission. The group is bleeding members, and is having a hard time trying to stay alive, this being at the most prestigious and popular university in the country. To add ontop of this, they are not allowed to make any political statements by decree of the university itself, which really begs the question as to why even have a sustainability commission in the first place in this day and age.
How do you really want to fight all these issues?
How are you going to convince the common everyday man with no particular political leanings to reduce their carbon footprint, without pointing out that we are all going to die otherwise? What incentive IS there for this person to inconvenience themselves?
How are you going to convince the far-right to not destroy our planet? They don't even live in the same reality as us! Exterminate every last one of them? Surely that can't be the answer?
How are you going to deal with the inevitable impact on the global economy the necessary reduction of emissions would implicate?
Voting with your wallet doesn't work in small-scale environments such as video games. People will always buy microtransactions and lootboxes, no matter how much you personally will abstain from them. You cannot control the rest of humanity. The same thing applies to meat, plastic, petroleum... you name it.
My despair, my lost hope, doesn't stem from nothing.
Even if I do go fully green, I just don't see a way we're getting out of this one, barring some kind of amazing, groundbreaking discovery that will remove the CO2 from our atmosphere.
A lot can happen in ten years, but it's not going to if people just give up.
Chinas doing far more to decrease their environmental impact than most western countries.
Okay, I think I'll have to make a megathread at this rate because you guys keep spouting the same points over and over, which I've already addressed multiple times.
Reducing the impact of climate change is not an all-or-nothing conundrum. It's about pushing the cursor to the left on the "bad but manageable" to "literally hell on earth" spectrum. Every. Individual. Contribution. Does. Whether others follow in your footsteps doesn't change the fact that you have personally changed the world for the better.
So whether enough people will do the same to reach whatever goal we may set out to achieve is irrelevant to whether you should make individual efforts regarding the environment. This applies to all the lazy asses out there who use that argument as a pathetic excuse to make no effort of their own. There's literally no reason not to get out there and contribute, those who claim otherwise by disregarding basic logic can simply go fuck themselves with a polearm.
So no, we are not "never going to get enough people to do so to even get to a point where it matters", because even a small minority doing their best matters and has its impact.
Your entire post is nothing but a focus on negative anecdotes that don't accurately represent reality, and that has ultimately no impact on the usefulness of action. It's nothing but biased despair fuel that serves no purpose other than discouraging others from doing things that would actually be very helpful in the long run.
Questions about how we can do even better than our isolated contribution can be very constructive and productive. They're not, however, arguments against action, like you're portraying them as.
Fuck that, would you please focus on the real people that can make an effect on a global significant scale.
Initially I was a bit wary because didn't have my facts at hand but yeah now I do:
Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says
The average Joe doesn't have the power to just change the world built up my and running on fossil fuels.
Many consumers have no other alternatives in a world so deeply reliant by carbon emissions,
the only real way to make a change is from top down, the governments of the world have the power and the responsibility to clamp down on this.
Companies have to feel it in their wallets, they need to punished, carbon-taxed or quite frankly dissolved if they are content at burning out this planet.
The chances of a whole consumer-landscape spanning grass-roots economic revolution is so abysmally small,
it is not worth a second thought, because that is what you are kind of insinuating.
Applying pressure from the bottom doesn't hurt but without the governments and the global community at large from the top,
you might as well call it quits, especially when we need to change the global economy fast and efficient.
I was wrong before, our voices can't be ignored, but only when they are the representatives sitting in our governments, making the needed decisions.
The only real way to make a change in order of magnitude is:
Your vote
Your voice
Your lifestyle choices
That is why I don't buy into your line of thought,
the most effective way of spending your time combating climate change is at your ballot box.
Every other change, without global governmental intervention on the other side, will be negligible in the grand big picture.
Greed is the root of all evil, it will have killed the earth.
Immigrants are such a non-problem it boggles the mind how goddamn hateful the right can be about something that Does Not Affect Them.
Good
Are you fucking serious right now?
You guys keep rehashing the exact same already-debunked crap every time. You even keep using the same irrelevant article as a "source". The rest of the post is, as usual, nothing but unsourced, uninformed opinion.
It's getting to the point where I simply have to copy paste my previous posts to debunk your shit.
Regarding your recycling of the same old goddamn article:
You think those companies create so much pollution for fun? No, they do it because it's profitable, and it's profitable because consumers are paying at the end of the line.
Those fossil fuel companies supply power plants that private citizens get their electricity from. They supply tankers, trains and trucks that haul cargo around so that consumers can get their products from the other side of the world. They supply industries so that they can carry out processes that require intensive heating, to create those products. All of the underlying emissions can be traced back to consumer demand if you go down far enough in the supply chain. So no, individuals' emissions don't end to the consumption of their car or the electricity they use, they also play a role in those corporate emissions you decry.
So please excuse me when I say that your stance, namely that reducing the environmental footprint of our lifestyles does nothing to combat climate change, is utter, dangerous bullshit. Yes, companies should strive to make their processes as CO2 efficient as possible. But on your end, your responsibility is to lower demand for carbon-intensive goods and services, so that less of these processes have to take place to begin with. If you're already doing it, good. But don't peddle lies about it serving no purpose, for fuck's sake.
And:
Companies output a lot of greenhouse gases because it's profitable, and it's profitable because of consumer demand for the resulting products. So both are true, the general public is indirectly responsible in part for those emissions, and companies are those that output them directly. Reducing consumer demand for those products thus reduces the ensuing emissions.
Regarding your unsubstanciated claim that putting some piece of paper in a ballot box is more efficient (and sufficient) to save the environment than actually changing your lifestyle:
Politicians need a majority of people to vote for them to take office. That means if you don't have at least 50% of the population that thinks the same as you, your vote amounts to jack shit.
Meanwhile, the CO2 you save up on by changing your lifestyle doesn't up and materialize if less than half of the population does the same.
Besides, any form of industrial regulation will have limited effects, because they're constrained by physics. There isn't much in the way of groundbreaking technology that allows planes to save up on more than a few % of fuel. Thermal power plants can hardly have a better yield than 60%. Industrial processes that rely on combustion can't cut down much in terms of emissions either.
You know what can cut those emissions by half, though? Only using those products and services half as much.
And:
Take planes, for instance. They're already extensively optimized, because lowering fuel consumption by a few % is what makes or breaks an airline's profits. They're still the least CO2 efficient mean of transportation available.
No amount of goodwill from plane manufacturers and designers will significantly reduce their planes' emissions for decades to come. What will reduce emissions, though, is people not flying unless it's absolutely necessary, and using literally any other mean of transportation available instead. That's, on average, a 60% (alone in a car) to 97% (electric train) reduction. More than technology could ever achieve.
Same goes for industrial processes that require heating stuff up to insane temperatures. There's no other way to do that than burning stuff. So the only way to reduce the associated emissions is to buy less of the products it's used to create. Same goes for the refining of rare earths, which is required to make our electronics and even renewables.
And:
Do you use the same argument when it comes to democracy? That it's useless to vote because a single vote doesn't change anything on its own? You're completely missing the point. The strength of cutting down on emissions comes through numbers, and the one way to make sure that number remains low is to do nothing because "why bother? I can't change anything on my own.
And:
You've provided no evidence for why a grassroots movement regarding lifestyles would be a pipedream, but you willingly assume that a grassroots political movement isn't.
Additionally, regulations take lots of time to be drafted and voted in, which is time during which CO2 continues to be pumped into the air. Politicians always get involved with lobbies anyway, and changing that in a short enough timespan? Now that is a pipedream.
And:
Change has to come from the bottom up. The world's most polluting companies won't be held accountable by most governments, so it's up to us citizens to work on cutting fossil fuel use and other pollution sources out of our lifestyles.
Regarding your claim that the average Joe can't do anything to change the issue, take a look at this list and then tell me that the average person can't do most of those things. Heck, half of these, on top of reducing emissions, also save money, so cost isn't even an argument against doing those.
Some of those arguments I've already made in this very thread, so I'm not sure how you went past them.
This is why I'm considering making a megathread. At least this way everything will be centralised and I won't have to either painstakingly dig up my old posts or remake my point over and over again.
you're arguing from the mindset of someone from a nation whose minister of ecology quit on air. you don't understand the situation in the US. here are the concluding remarks from Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org and one of the leading US environmental activists for a 2016 speech in Indiana:
“I wish that I could guarantee you that we’re all going to win in the end, the whole thing. And I can’t, because we don’t know. The physics of climate change is pretty daunting at this point. The momentum of it is pretty big. We’re not going to win everything. We’re not going to stop global climate change. It’s too late for that.
“But the work you’re doing literally couldn’t be more important. There’s not many people who get to say in their lives, ‘I’m doing the most important thing I could be doing.’ But that’s what you guys are doing today. I can’t guarantee you’re going to win. But I can guarantee you in every corner of the world that we’re going to fight. And that’s going to be enough for now, just knowing that we are taking it on.”
things have become substantially more dire since. the US administration is ardently opposed to action. unimaginable amounts of money not only oppose action, but oppose activism on account of the profit loss widespread activism would entail. high-profile scientists and activists who have devoted their entire careers to this are giving up. you live in a much smaller, far more conscious society. unfortunately, the world isn't as aware as france. much of the world cannot (ironically) afford to be as aware and informed. the lifestyle changes required on mass scale to actually make an impact on this problem would be devastating to the people enacting them. yes, the alternative is even more devastating. we're stuck between a rock and a hard place.
there's a reason the article uses the word "genocide". it is unavoidable.
Again, point out what exactly about lifestyle changes that drastically reduce emissions is "devastating". Halving your meat consumption alone has dramatic effects.
I'm not debunking the Guardian article itself, I'm pointing out it's fucking irrelevant. Yeah, direct emissions mainly come from the fossil fuel industries. They still exist in large part because you don't do anything to optimise your lifestyle in the first place.
A: 45 percent of americans have no access to public transportation. those who do often encounter delays that result in termination from work.
source: Facts
B: point A shows clearly how for short term survival dependence on fossil fuels is necessary. it's easy to be against climate change, it's hard to cause your family to become homeless due to your ideology.
Are you going to pay the salaries of the meat industry workers you've put out of business, pay their medical coverage, put their kids through school? Are you going to pay for the electric vehicle you'd like them to drive, pay for the obscene maintence costs related to owning an EV which requires dealership repairs should something go wrong in it? Are you going to install the charging stations in the small towns like mine, that are 15+ miles out from a shopping center?
You're proclaiming lifestyle changes will make an impact, without seeming to follow through on the depths of what an impact like that does to the people in those industries you're suggesting people cut back on.
most employees lasted two weeks and were ridiculed during weekly meetings
You think, given this forum's demographics, that after writing pages upon pages about what we can do and why, in half a dozen threads, nobody mentioned the issue of public transportation in the US?
Congratulations. You've shown there may be limitations, depending on context, on one (1) item of the Transportation section, which has five, in a list of examples of what you can personally do to limit global warming, which has 29 items on individual measures alone.
Care to tell me how that shows that individuals can't actually do much to reduce the impact of global warming? Because that's what I dispute. I never said we can do away entirely with fossil fuel dependency, and I'd appreciate if you could stop setting up strawmen to argue against.
Funnily enough, this is relevant to point D.5). Also:
This is on last page. Read the fucking thread. Cut it out with the damn strawmen.
Utterly irrelevant to what I'm talking about. Could you point out where I've said you need to own an EV to make a change in your lifestyle? My posts even say it might be counter-productive depending on the context.
What a load of bullshit. This is the exact same rhetoric corrupt politicians use to defend the interests of the fossil fuel industry against governmental regulation.
First off, I'm not responsible for your country's piss poor social security. So no, I'm not going to pay for that. If you actually care about their well-being, push for better social safety nets instead of propping up industries regardless of the negative impact they eventually have on everyone.
Second, creating jobs for the sake of creating jobs, growth for the sake of growth, is what put us in this situation in the first place. Not every job has equal value regarding the net positives (or negatives) it provides to the rest of humanity.
Third, you're conveniently ignoring (just like those politicians, huh) job creation in fields related to sustainable living. You're assuming that there will be no creation of demand regarding products with a lower carbon footprint.
Finally, even if we chose to ignore all of the previous points, you're asking me to choose between saving the jobs of an ultimately negligible amounts of workers, and putting as much effort as possible to prevent societal collapse (and the associated loss of lives).
Do you seriously think the former is the reasonable choice to make?
I'll only address the specific points you've made regarding my post in particular, _Axel.
Utterly irrelevant to what I'm talking about. Could you point out where I've said you need to own an EV to make a change in your lifestyle? My posts even say it might be counter-productive depending on the context.
You don't get to keep referencing generic life-style changes and not include the second largest producer of fossil fuels (In the US) as being one of those changes.
What a load of bullshit. This is the exact same rhetoric corrupt politicians use to defend the interests of the fossil fuel industry against governmental regulation.
Because I've asked you a valid question regarding the expectation for the workers in an industry being outmoded, my question is bullshit and no longer requires a valid response? That's uh, an interesting way to have a conversation. An especially hostile way, but interesting nonetheless. Beyond that, I'm asking what you expect from the people in those industries to do. What you expect from them when their livelihoods are threatened, and how
you're going to provide a financially viable way of stepping between a carbon producing product, to a carbon neutral one.
First off, I'm not responsible for your country's piss poor social security. So no, I'm not going to pay for that. If you actually care about their well-being, push for better social safety nets instead of propping up industries regardless of the negative impact they eventually have on everyone.
I don't mean to sound like a dick, but you seem to be entirely naive on the subject of governmental bodies in the modern era. The US, as well as a vast many other nations around the globe no longer answer to the public outcry or the whims and desires of the populations living in them. Pushing for anything along the skein of politics is no longer a viable option.
Also, attempting to shower me in some personal guilt over the well-being of others has virtually no bearing on the subject at hand, nor the government of my country's obviously lacking societal welfare allotments in terms of budget and decision making.
Second, creating jobs for the sake of creating jobs, growth for the sake of growth, is what put us in this situation in the first place. Not every job has equal value regarding the net positives (or negatives) it provides to the rest of humanity.
No? What put us in this situation was not remotely close to what you're suggesting. What did however do it was a natural warming cycle, followed by an industrial revolution, followed by a massive swath of suppressed information as well as gerrymandering, bribes, concealing 70+ years of studies for the sake of profit margins and milking the proverbial cow until it's teat is dry, as well as a wide swath of other factors. You seem to be a fan of reductionist in your arguments, and your followup sentence furthers that point home. The lives and livelihoods of the few, for the sake of the many, doesn't exactly sit well with the very real people whom will be harmed in the process.
And I don't mean to call you out on your own points, but it seems childish to push other people to do something for the betterment of all humanity, when you yourself are willing to discard the import of a person's ability to care for their families well-being.
Third, you're conveniently ignoring (just like those politicians, huh) job creation in fields related to sustainable living. You're assuming that there will be no creation of demand regarding products with a lower carbon footprint.
At no point did I mention, nor discard the viability of shifting fields from producing meat/agricultural products from carbon producing ones, to ones which produce less, or even negate current carbon emissions. You again seem intent on comparing me to a politician, when it has no bearing on anything I said. I'd rather you stick to the questions I asked, and their implications, than bring up another side-point which has no bearing.
Finally, even if we chose to ignore all of the previous points, you're asking me to choose between saving the jobs of an ultimately negligible amount of workers, and putting as much effort as possible in preventing societal collapse (and the associated loss of lives).
Do you seriously think the former is the reasonable choice to make?
Absolutism, reductionist thinking, and the lives of the few for the betterment of the many. Quite a combo you've got going there.
Not only have you displayed a complete disregard for the well-being of your fellow man in your response, you've outright stated that you're "not responsible" for my country's issues regarding social security. Which brings me to a question. Why should anyone be responsible for anything, if you yourself display no willingness to front the bill for the sake of others?
I could go on and on about the level of paradoxical thinking you're putting on display, but instead, I'll leave you with one serious question. How many people do you expect Humanity to discard, for the betterment of all mankind?
Beyond the points I've brought up and discussed above, the original article is absolute nonsense. It completely discards the massive, and nearing century old technologies we have to combat climate change. We may have ten years if we do absolutely nothing, in regards to what I'm about to mention, but even so. It is a laughably sensationalist headline.
Before I get anyone up in arms about it, yes, climate change, global warming, pick your poision/name. It's happening, there is a tipping point where it will become lethal to a vast majority of life on Earth. What needs doing will require time, time we can buy. For cheap. We buy that time with a little 'ol thing called Geoengineering/Climate engineering.
Does it solve the problem? No. Is it a stopgap measure? Yes. Are we a decade away from irreversible damage to the biosphere that is irrecoverable? No-one will be able to answer that question with any certainty until we've gone so far past that threshold that it's written in a journal, by the last man, woman, or machine on Earth.
tl;dr: Geoengineering will save our sorry asses, if we work against the clock and don't use it as an end-all be-all.
It seems like the only thing you people will accept is a fucking miracle solution where we can keep all of our luxuries, the economy doesn't take any hits, no one has to lose their jobs, and society can basically just keep chugging along like it always has without the average person having to make any real sacrifices to their quality of life. It's not going to happen. If we want to even just keep the effects of climate change a manageable catastrophe, we are going to have to give some shit up.
Man, and I want to have a kid in a couple years.
I just keep telling myself it'll still be a world worth living in
Look at it this way, if we paint all the roads in the US white, we lower the global temperature by two degrees Celsius. If we can do one batshit crazy thing that would work, and is viable and cheap, we can do the rest and make it out fine.
...And you don't get to ignore the multiple ways you can reduce consumption of fossil fuel for this particular use that I've already referenced, and which don't require EVs.
What the hell do you mean, "generic life style changes"? I gave a 30 item list of specific ways to act, for fuck's sake.
I'm simply fucking sick and tired of people spouting the exact same unsubstantiated crap over and over and over again, despite my providing bucketloads of evidence and lengthy, detailed reasoning as to why it's complete bullshit.
We have enough on our plate already without regular people recuperating "but think of the jobs!" politician sophisms.
The same as people currently or formerly in the coal industry? I frankly don't see the relevance to the topic at hand.
Your second question is vague as shit, and again, I don't see the relevance.
Okay?
Yeah, let's completely ignore that the fact we're in such shit in the first place is due to rampant consumerism and a capitalistic structure that prioritizes growth over everything else.
Are you trying to guilt trip me because I don't think a person's job should take priority over others' lives? The fuck are you on?
No. The comfort of the few for the lives of the many. What the fuck is so hard to understand about this?
That you're so keen to spruce around references to logical fallacies regardless of whether they're appropriate, yet produce such a glaring strawmanning, is frankly concerning.
This:
Is utterly irrelevant to my point. I don't plan on discarding lives, but saving them. That takes precedence over jobs.
Since you seem to like questions, here's one for you:
How many human lives are you ready to sacrifice for the sake of a few jobs?
Riiight. Frankly sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about. You're going to have to provide some credible sources to back those claims up.
I'm just going to disregard the remainder of your posts as ad hominem seems to be the letter of the day. As for credible sources, I'll let you dig them out of various other places, but here's a start:
Fighting global warming by climate engineering
Same principle, different abstract:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management#Cool_roof
Yeah, no. Sorry but you're not getting out of providing a source on how painting US roads white would reduce global temperature by 2°C.
It was a talk by Gwynne Dyer
It may have been this one
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY
Climate Engineering is important field that needs to be studied, but not hyped. While it would be feasible to use simple solar management ex. via aerosols, there are dangers and knockoff-effects associated - on food production, for example. I don't think current pathway models incorporate it since it is such a risky path - but it is good to have in hand.
But talking about science, here is something for nerds, IAMC and IIASA released a tool for exploring various models for 1.5C (among <2C, above-2C and nopolicy) scenarios.
https://data.ene.iiasa.ac.at/iamc-1.5c-explorer/
While perhaps not useful to most people, it can be extremely interesting tool.
No matter how inspiring you are, or are trying to be, I'm still ultimately left numb to all this.
I do what I can. I will continue to do so, and make more efforts. But my life only gets worse, and harder on a year to year basis as I get older, and I have to give up more and more things, and witness a world filled with people enjoying whatever shit they want without a concern about the costs it'll have.
I've suffered from depression my whole life, and barely have a hold of it now. I can manage it by indulging in a few things like driving, or video games or good food. Those things need to be minimized in many ways. I'm aware of the numerous ecological and environmental disasters around us that are occuring as we live and breath. I can't stop those by just minimzing some habbits of mine, while major changes to national structures are required for anything of the sort.
Yeah, we can push the cursor to the left, but the only people who are going to be enjoying that world at any level, are the ones who destroyed this one. Oh cool, I'll have a subsistent existance if any at all, I guess we're supposed to be happy about a lot of those types of "Small victories" but as I stated, I already struggle with depression and we're looking down the barrel of a world where none of that matters, and to get to a "less than terrible" one, we all have to sacrifice lots, but the richest around the world aren't going to.
I don't know how people are supposed to just "Suck it up" when it comes to their depression, or other issues like that. They're the ones who stand to lose a lot going forward. Doesn't matter I guess.
I never said that you have to make the environment your absolute top priority whatever the personal cost.
If you need to partake in environmentally unfriendly activities every now and then, for the sake of your mental health, then I see no reason to blame you for it whatsoever.
My rants are directed at the motherfuckers who can't be bothered to make the slightest of effort out of laziness, and are trying to bullshit their way through justifying this behavior. Depression is an entire matter altogether.
I guess.
I went through that list of 29 things people can do, if each was valued 1-10, I'd be at a 209 out of a total of 290. That's not too bad, but some of those things are literally impossible to do. I can't hang my laundry to dry, I literally don't have the room. I can't grow my own food, there's no place for me to do that what so ever.
It doesn't help me feel less like this is all pointless, I still do it though, I just don't believe it'll matter in the long run and I'll have just done this kind of thing for no real effect.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.