Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Aardark235 t1_j8jgw69 wrote

Reply to comment by CodeVirus in New study shows Acceleration of global sea level rise imminent past 1.8℃ planetary warming by 9273629397759992

More depressing is that a vast majority of Redditors are unwilling to make any sacrifices in order to fight climate change. They want the burden to be placed on some bogeyman.

−70

Under_Over_Thinker t1_j8jln8a wrote

If it was up to redditors. Only governments and their coordinated action can make impact. My wife picks up garbage on the road sides, we recycle and drive 1-2 times a week. So what? Unless producers change how they manufacture goods, ranchers feed cows those seaweed supplements, carbon capture facilities are built, energy production is green — there will be no impact.

Do you seriously think that a small fraction of the population who posts on reddit can make that change?

Climate change is like a war. Individuals can’t win it. You need governments (plural) to regulate the industry and rebuild the economy. No private company, like Tesla or Bill Gates’ initiatives will do the job.

Reddit audience is unfortunately not representative of the US population.

88

xlllxJackxlllx t1_j8jnqt4 wrote

I heard the the war analogy on a podcast once. The speaker said that we would have to mobilize like we did in WWII, but x10.

IMO, anything less and our global society is going to collapse.

19

paceminterris t1_j8jnzw6 wrote

When we talk about individual action, we aren't talking about recycling.

Corporations can't magically find a "green" way to manufacture all the creature comforts we demand to consume, because the very products themselves are carbon-intensive. The only way to realistically make a difference is to curtail most industrial manufacturing, which DOES imply that ordinary people are going to have to make cutbacks and change their lives.

Here is a list of things that BOTH corporations AND individuals need to eliminate in order to have a shot at fighting climate change:

Personal vehicles, air travel, air conditioning, meat and animal products, single family homes, and electronics. Does it sound extreme? Sure, but these are extreme times. We ignored the warnings for decades.

11

Under_Over_Thinker t1_j8jx199 wrote

You are right about what and by whom it needs to be done.

My point is that neither individuals nor the companies will do that unless the government creates programs and laws that would enforce and facilitate the process. And it’s not just about writing the law. It’s about finding the way all the undertakings can really be implemented.

Also, when I mentioned recycling, I meant exactly what you are saying. That recycling does almost nothing to prevent the climate change.

16

GapingFartBoxes t1_j8k5ir1 wrote

Laws are easily circumvented.

The only possible solution is through collective consumer action, especially first world consumers.

I always found it amusing how people scream " individual actions are meaningless compared to corporations!" But in the same breath they'll tell you voting is important.

You can't have both. Either collective action (voting and consumer choices) can be effective, or they can't. You can't have one without the other. It's called supply and demand. Consumers demand from companies. If everyone stopped buying stuff on Amazon, Amazon would go out of business.

Most first worlders are aware of this, but they're so entitled and fat that they think everyone else should have to change while they don't.

That's human nature for ya.

−10

Telemere125 t1_j8ku3sy wrote

What you’re suggesting is that I change my lifestyle while also relying on my neighbor to voluntarily their habits; if it’s not a government regulation, it’s not going to happen in meaningful enough numbers. The burden isn’t on individuals; it’s on governments and corporations.

10

HenryGreatSageJunkie t1_j8jyyma wrote

Do all you want to help, and some corporation will still dump 1000 lifetimes of pollution into the environment in one day. This is a problem that individuals have no control over.

12

Aardark235 t1_j8jzrdh wrote

Residential and transportation represents 53% of energy consumption. Add in commercial use and the total is 65%. Industry is not dominating the numbers.

All of these uses could be dramatically decreased simply by drilling less, digging less, and increasing the costs of fossil fuels via taxes. It’s the simple answer that nobody wants to hear. Everyone wants to just blame an evil corporation instead of making moderate sacrifices.

−11

HenryGreatSageJunkie t1_j8ka8kv wrote

Evil corporations are why we haven't moved to a nuclear grid 50 years ago. I need to heat my house, there's snow outside and the method of generating that heat is decided by the people who own the resource extraction process and the refining. They also own the politicians who make legislation. You're suggesting we "simply" redefine society from the ground up while holding no power to do so.

18

Aardark235 t1_j8kh1c4 wrote

You must have forgotten about three mile island… virtually all environmental groups came out anti-nuclear. Still mostly that way.

−5

HenryGreatSageJunkie t1_j8khk6y wrote

Evil oil companies fund them to propagate anti nuclear propaganda. Are you aware that the two largest nuclear accidents have less dead people in these instances than 6 months of fossil fuel production every year?

6

Aardark235 t1_j8kiha9 wrote

I am well aware of the safety of nuclear power instead of fossil fuels. That doesn’t take away from the mass hysteria that led to a stoppage of new plant construction globally.

Nice to blame the bogeyman, but society has responsibility on this one.

−4

HenryGreatSageJunkie t1_j8kir74 wrote

The hysteria was literally funded by oil and gas. It still is. Society is steered by money and the politicians that they own.

What in your mind is the way we get people to stop drilling, stop using cars and just outright curb fossil fuel use? What mechanisms in society exist for us to do this, specifically?

Edited grammar 2nd edit. Also globally there have been dozens of new plants built and dozens more planned.china has built 53 and has 24 more planned. Seems like good planning.

7

BurnerAcc2020 t1_j8mpps3 wrote

You know that those Chinese nuclear plants amount to 5% of their electricity needs, right? If anything, the US already has about twice as many reactors as China and more than anyone else in the world - yet those are just 18% of the US' electricity.

A fully/mostly nuclear grid in the US is always presented as if it's a matter of building just a few more reactors, when the reality is that without a major reduction to the current levels of electricity consumption, you would have to build (and operate) a few hundred more of them. If you think that oil and gas industry is the only reason the US did not build 300/400 more nuclear power plants by now...well, OK, I guess.

0

HenryGreatSageJunkie t1_j8mt2om wrote

No the scale of our electrical needs is easily met with nuclear. We just can't let capitalism run them.

Also op was talking about recently built reactors and new ones planned, China has built the most recently and has planned the most in the future. Why does everyone want to ignore the literal billions of dollars oil and gas has spent to spoil people's opinions on nuclear energy to the point that you just can't fathom building hundreds of plants around the globe.

Edit: what mechanisms exist in society that will allow us, the working class to change things to the point that we don't require as much energy in the future? Capitalism only knows consumption, and they're in charge. They own the oil and gas and they own the politicians that legislate. The future is the poor getting priced out of energy and dying, it's not a utopia of reduced emissions ushered in by shell, ExxonMobil and Halliburton continuing record profits.

2

mrbittykat t1_j8kfydm wrote

I’m recycling and riding my bike as much as I can man, I even stopped my personal train from derailing in Ohio and shut down my lithium mine.. what more do you want from me?!

6

Harucifer t1_j8kl8dy wrote

>More depressing is that a vast majority of Redditors are unwilling to make any sacrifices in order to fight climate change

I take 5 minute showers every other day, I hold my pee as long as possible to minimize flushes, I have solar panels to generate electricity, and I don't have plants that require regular watering. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT FOR ME ? Meanwhile businesses waste tons of water on lack of efficiency or flat-out mistakes. They aren't "bogeyman", they are the problem.

6

DarthVap3rrr t1_j8kzxc7 wrote

He’s completely delusional just willfully ignorant.

1

ImproveorDieYoung t1_j8ku4wu wrote

Yeah, blame the poor people who live week to week and not the multinational corporations dumping garbage into the sea and spewing poison into the air by the tons.

100 companies cause 70% of all emissions. And renewables haven’t taken off to the point where everyone can power their homes and vehicles totally sustainably. So if given the choice to freeze in the winter and burn in the summer, I’m positive the majority of the population will continue to pay their gas and electric bills and drive their cars to continue to survive.

If the government and corporations wanted to force significant change that would allow everyone to live more sustainably, they could do it. But they don’t. And don’t tell us that biking to work and using paper straws will help, because we’re not the ones mass producing all this garbage for consumption.

5

PaintingWithLight t1_j8k4xdw wrote

You’ve been fooled by the corporations, corporations PR(successfully executed) has shifted blame away from them towards consumers.

Which, I do agree is a bit of an issue with rampant materialism and consumerism too extreme. But think about the amount of pollution from cruise ships. There are many, but not THAT many and they pollute some obscene percentage of the total populations emissions. Funnily enough, they don’t even mention the mega cargo ships, and I don’t know the number, but my logic says there are WAY more cargo ships then cruise ships.

Yes, I know less cargo ships would be used if the population didn’t want as much useless stuff so regularly.

4

TheFinnishChamp t1_j8jrh7y wrote

That's the way all animals are, shortsighted and selfish. People who are climate aware consume just as much as the ignorant.

If we have the ability and choice to consume, produce and reproduce at unsustainable levels we will. That ability and choice needs to be taken away.

1

blondboii t1_j8kk30g wrote

Like hold the global elite accountable for their vast proportion of ghg emissions?

1

DeaconOrlov t1_j8ky3eg wrote

Like the rich? This isn't an issue individuals can affect, the are society wide systemic problems and you and me don't have a whole to do with things that could actually make an impact

1