Given recent reports, and just a feel for general attitudes, I feel that we've gone from "we should do something" to "whelp, looks like it's going to get a little rough", especially at the governmental level. As TFA points out, there's not much we can do at an individual level that will make a whole lot of difference (no, your Tesla isn't going to save the polar bears, and neither is my Leaf). Vote? Eh, maybe. If the recent IPCC report is anywhere near the truth, what chance does a politician stand if they promise to do what's needed? A snowball's chance in...well, Fairbanks in about thirty years.
So on the one hand, I've been trying to do without driving when I can (not as much as I should), avoid flying, recycle my shit even back when I had to pay for the privilege, all the hippy stuff I'm supposed to do to "preserve Mother Earth". But to what end? Looks like I'm getting the losing end of this game theory/prisoner's dilemma experiment. I'm old (gettin' there, anyway), and we don't have kids. Won't be my problem, or the problem of anyone I care about. So the other side of me wants to say, "fuck it", turn the heat up, and quit worrying so much about the environmental impact of our RV.
> I'm old (gettin' there, anyway), and we don't have kids.
Well I do have kids, so I can't just say fuck it. I basically have to cling to the hope that geoengineering is going to stop the worst effects. I yoyo from "it'll be tough but we'll survive" to "we've had a good life" about 12 times a day now.
The effects of global warming are going to be quite minor. Mostly having to build levees / relocate low lying buildings. Very expensive, but hardly a doomsday scenario. Not as big a deal imo as other man made threats to the environment (and to ourselves).
Warmer climates increase agricultural productivity and available farmland. The bigger risk to farmland is desertification due to overcultuvation and other manmade causes (that are mostly not global warming).
Unfortunately that's that happens when you have an incredibly wealthy elite that know they're not going to live long enough to see the outcomes of their actions.
> 70 percent of global emissions come from just 100 companies
The first “company” on that list is China. I mean that literally, look at the actual report[1]. This article and the Guardian piece completely misrepresent the actual conclusion.
I think blaming those 100 companies is absolutely acceptable, however I'd still be conscious that thinking that it's all of those companies fault and I won't make a difference anyway isn't right too. You should take the bike/public transport if you can.
In the report someone posted in comments you can find that some of the pollutants are the countries and their coal industries. What I would love to have is an option to pay a higher energy bill for green energy. In that case I would imagine the company providing that would invest anything on top of regular energy prices into renewables.
Another idea that i really like is "taxing yourself". When I set up my company next month I want to join 1% For the Planet (http://www.onepercentfortheplanet.org/index.php) and donate 1% of sales towards environmental non-profits.
This is irresponsible reporting, and irresponsibly ethically.
Those companies aren't putting out GHG for fun. They're manufacturing products every single person on the planet is consuming. Those companies, while they could play a huge role in taking leadership, aren't the problem.
Every single person reading the article let is the problem. You can't externalize this responsibility. You have to take responsibility for yourself and if possible, influence others yourself. This doesn't have to be advocacy, you can go out and start a lower-emissions competitor, or donate to carbon sequestering/scrubbing initiatives.
9 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 31.8 ms ] threadSo on the one hand, I've been trying to do without driving when I can (not as much as I should), avoid flying, recycle my shit even back when I had to pay for the privilege, all the hippy stuff I'm supposed to do to "preserve Mother Earth". But to what end? Looks like I'm getting the losing end of this game theory/prisoner's dilemma experiment. I'm old (gettin' there, anyway), and we don't have kids. Won't be my problem, or the problem of anyone I care about. So the other side of me wants to say, "fuck it", turn the heat up, and quit worrying so much about the environmental impact of our RV.
Well I do have kids, so I can't just say fuck it. I basically have to cling to the hope that geoengineering is going to stop the worst effects. I yoyo from "it'll be tough but we'll survive" to "we've had a good life" about 12 times a day now.
And we're already starting to pay the price.
The first “company” on that list is China. I mean that literally, look at the actual report[1]. This article and the Guardian piece completely misrepresent the actual conclusion.
[1] https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1...
In the report someone posted in comments you can find that some of the pollutants are the countries and their coal industries. What I would love to have is an option to pay a higher energy bill for green energy. In that case I would imagine the company providing that would invest anything on top of regular energy prices into renewables.
Another idea that i really like is "taxing yourself". When I set up my company next month I want to join 1% For the Planet (http://www.onepercentfortheplanet.org/index.php) and donate 1% of sales towards environmental non-profits.
Those companies aren't putting out GHG for fun. They're manufacturing products every single person on the planet is consuming. Those companies, while they could play a huge role in taking leadership, aren't the problem.
Every single person reading the article let is the problem. You can't externalize this responsibility. You have to take responsibility for yourself and if possible, influence others yourself. This doesn't have to be advocacy, you can go out and start a lower-emissions competitor, or donate to carbon sequestering/scrubbing initiatives.