Current Events > Are you willing to quit your job to fight global warming?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I have heard it is dire. I believe in climate change but acting as if the world ends soon to me is weird.

See, if you work for any corporation, even McDonalds; you are contributing profits to fuel the system of carbon emissions. Even just distribution of burger patties requires a massive fleet of trucks to deliver them. Then we have processing facilities.
What corp can you work for that basically doesn't contribute to the problem?

So, here we are, working jobs, providing value to the rich men and their systems that create emissions; but we are going to act like it is dire and we must have drastic change now?

Why don't we then quit our jobs and become professional activists? Stop using fossil fuels and power made from them and products made from them and working for those who do the same.
It seems to me, even the most vocal voices are content consuming the products of western civilization like smartphones and the power that runs them, but want to also bemoan that the world is ending and someone needs to fix it, and ASAP.
At least, that is an impression that often comes across.

If the solution is not "act now hurry"! Then what is the issue? Corps and governments are slowly trying to reduce emissions. If that is not enough, then why are we complacent?

I don't think I am willing to quit my job and try to forage and forego modern tech and products.

Are you?

Ummmmmm........

---

Lol no
---

We should all donate our organs to other people and just live off dialysis for years

Galaxy brain

ToPoPO posted...

We should all donate our organs to other people and just live off dialysis for years

Idk the relevance what you just said has to this topic.
Dialysis machines consume alot of power though I think if we are discussing carbon emissions. Also has to be built in a factory. Etc.

So whose alt is this
---

My job is with a renewable energy company so I'm curious how that will help anything
---

theAteam posted...

My job is with a renewable energy company so I'm curious how that will help anything

Your company produces 0 or negative carbon footprint?
Also, does your company rely on the waste of other companies or could it exist without them?

i work for an oil company
we're too busy burning this shit hole to the ground to hear all this noise
---

The Earth will eventually be destroyed when the sun turns into a red giant. That'd be one hell of a carbon footprint.
---

The Trent posted...

i work for an oil company
we're too busy burning this shit hole to the ground to hear all this noise

Enjoy your wealth while it lasts I guess.

thanks bro
you too or whatever
---

DarkRoast posted...

The Earth will eventually be destroyed when the sun turns into a red giant. That'd be one hell of a carbon footprint.

So just forget about climate change?
I don't think so.

Can somebody post the matt bors comic I'm on mobile

RdVEHfJqAvUPIbk posted...

Lol no

Well, I guess it is true that brewing has a hefty carbon footprint. And you love the products made from the process.
I wonder if alchohol production could fit into a low carbon or no carbon vision of the world.
Hmm.

FrozenXylophone posted...

It seems to me, even the most vocal voices are content consuming the products of western civilization like smartphones and the power that runs them, but want to also bemoan that the world is ending and someone needs to fix it, and ASAP.
At least, that is an impression that often comes across.

You got it.

Because the solutions in something like the Green New Deal are insanely unfeasible to sustain the current lifestyle of most Americans, and most know this.

Phewfus posted...

You got it.

Because the solutions in something like the Green New Deal are insanely unfeasible to sustain the current lifestyle of most Americans, and most know this.

I thought alot of people on the left liked the green new deal.

https://www.dataforprogress.org/the-green-new-deal-is-popular

The Green New Deal remains broadly popular, with 59 percent of US voters supporting the policy and only 28 percent opposed.
While support for green energy policies is strongest among Millennials, age is not as strong a divider of opinion as one might suspect.
Party ID is the central cleavage on green policy, with Democrats supporting climate action at much higher levels than Republicans, and Independents leaning closer to Democrats than Republicans on all three issues.

darkphoenix181 posted...

Phewfus posted...

You got it.

Because the solutions in something like the Green New Deal are insanely unfeasible to sustain the current lifestyle of most Americans, and most know this.

I thought alot of people on the left liked the green new deal.

https://www.dataforprogress.org/the-green-new-deal-is-popular

The Green New Deal remains broadly popular, with 59 percent of US voters supporting the policy and only 28 percent opposed.
While support for green energy policies is strongest among Millennials, age is not as strong a divider of opinion as one might suspect.
Party ID is the central cleavage on green policy, with Democrats supporting climate action at much higher levels than Republicans, and Independents leaning closer to Democrats than Republicans on all three issues.

Liking something and sacrificing for it are two different things.

68 % percent of Americans aren't even willing to pay ten more dollars for greener electricity a month.

https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-higher-electric-bills-combat-climate-change

Although Americans say they are worried about climate change, most clearly arent worried enough to spend their own money on it, or make personal sacrifices for the cause. Perhaps it might be that people know they are supposed to be concerned about climate change because this is a salient message they receive from trusted sources and thus say so on surveys. However, receiving these messages and cues hasnt been enough to convince them to give up their own money, let alone lower their own standard of living, for the cause of combating global warming. However, significant personal sacrifices are what proposals like the Green New Deal will require. These data provide some indication that purported support for government interventions in the economy to deal with climate change may be inflated. Instead, Americans may be more supportive of public policies that foster an economic environment that allows for technological innovation and invention among rising entrepreneurs and private sector businesses competing to come up with the next big idea that makes our world cleaner, healthier, happier, and more productive.

Phewfus posted...

Liking something and sacrificing for it are two different things.

68 % percent of Americans aren't even willing to pay ten more dollars for greener electricity a month.

https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-higher-electric-bills-combat-climate-change

Although Americans say they are worried about climate change, most clearly arent worried enough to spend their own money on it, or make personal sacrifices for the cause. Perhaps it might be that people know they are supposed to be concerned about climate change because this is a salient message they receive from trusted sources and thus say so on surveys. However, receiving these messages and cues hasnt been enough to convince them to give up their own money, let alone lower their own standard of living, for the cause of combating global warming. However, significant personal sacrifices are what proposals like the Green New Deal will require. These data provide some indication that purported support for government interventions in the economy to deal with climate change may be inflated. Instead, Americans may be more supportive of public policies that foster an economic environment that allows for technological innovation and invention among rising entrepreneurs and private sector businesses competing to come up with the next big idea that makes our world cleaner, healthier, happier, and more productive.

I see.

Do they think the green new deal won't effect them?

Earth needs a good cleanup.

If the government gives me yangbux and video games, sure

---

No. I don't buy into the hysteria. Worst case scenario, the world really is fucked and I don't mind that either.

REMercsChamp posted...

If the government gives me yangbux and video games, sure

Video games requite power for all the computers developing them, developing the chips and to turn on console.

They are a product that is part of the carbon emitting system.

FrozenXylophone posted...

Video games requite power for all the computers developing them, developing the chips and to turn on console.

They are a product that is part of the carbon emitting system.

Nope - they exist outside of this system. Anime too.

---

darkphoenix181 posted...

I see.

Do they think the green new deal won't effect them?

Most people haven't read it themselves I would imagine.

Is TC willing to strap his testicles to a car battery to fight global warming?
---

CyricZ posted...

Is TC willing to strap his testicles to a car battery to fight global warming?

What would that accomplish?

The pain would cause me to rapidly exhale carbon emissions.

You're so close, tc, you're practically there..

Yes, the dominant socioeconomic model governing modern civilization is the fundamental problem. Capitalism. That's what needs to be addressed.

Omnislasher posted...

Capitalism. That's what needs to be addressed.

How would Socialism abolish production?

I work for a non profit and some of revenue goes towards climate change research

Lmao

Malfunction posted...

Except that doesn't work here.

You really think companies will stop carbon emissions while we still want jobs with them and buy their products?

The idea is, we need DRASTIC change. We need it now.

Your comic works if we can sit on our hands and slowly pass legislation and have a win here or there.

But is that reality?

knutjob posted...

I work for a non profit and some of revenue goes towards climate change research

Good. But do you work in an air conditioned building with fancy office chairs, coffee machine, nicely painted walls, copy machines, etc, etc?

All these products fuel big industries that emit lots of carbon.

Phewfus posted...

Most people haven't read it themselves I would imagine.

Well, that is the case with most laws.

ah yes, the "if you, individually, are not personally willing to deeply inconvenience yourself, no one should consider the argument that everyone should be mildly inconvenienced to resolve a real problem" argument

it's like watching a heritage foundation intern write his first AstroTurf post
---

Nah, at this point it is more productive to accelerate the disaster so we will finally get rid of the shit stain that is homo sapiens
---

Are companies willing to back off of my bills if I do quit?
---

remember when trolling was against the rules
---

FrozenXylophone posted...

Good. But do you work in an air conditioned building with fancy office chairs, coffee machine, nicely painted walls, copy machines, etc, etc?

All these products fuel big industries that emit lots of carbon.

No I work at home

@Sackgurl posted...

ah yes, the "if you, individually, are not personally willing to deeply inconvenience yourself, no one should consider the argument that everyone should be mildly inconvenienced to resolve a real problem" argument

it's like watching a heritage foundation intern write his first AstroTurf post

Point is mildly inconveniencing everyone isn't enough.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

former director of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the worlds foremost experts on climate change, showed the true gravity of the situation. In it, Hansen set out to determine what level of atmospheric CO2 society should aim for if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted. His climate models showed that exceeding 350 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere would likely have catastrophic effects. Weve already blown past that limit. Right now, environmental monitoring shows concentrations around 400 ppm. Thats particularly problematic because CO2 remains in the atmosphere for more than a century; even if we shut down every fossil-fueled power plant today, existing CO2 will continue to warm the planet.

We decided to combine our energy innovation studys best-case scenario results with Hansens climate model to see whether a 55 percent emission cut by 2050 would bring the world back below that 350-ppm threshold. Our calculations revealed otherwise. Even if every renewable energy technology advanced as quickly as imagined and they were all applied globally, atmospheric CO2 levels wouldnt just remain above 350 ppm; they would continue to rise exponentially due to continued fossil fuel use. So our best-case scenario, which was based on our most optimistic forecasts for renewable energy, would still result in severe climate change, with all its dire consequences

The fact that you called this a heritage foundation talking point shows you haven't thoughr about climate change much.

Smh

Hmm I have no one to support me and dont want to be homeless I'll keep my job.

FrozenXylophone posted...

Point is mildly inconveniencing everyone isn't enough.

at this stage, we're no longer at the point of "full resolution is possible" but rather "limiting the damage"

it's very much a heritage foundation talking point to argue that if you individually won't give up everything, no one should give up anything
---

Sackgurl posted...

FrozenXylophone posted...

Point is mildly inconveniencing everyone isn't enough.

at this stage, we're no longer at the point of "full resolution is possible" but rather "limiting the damage"

it's very much a heritage foundation talking point to argue that if you individually won't give up everything, no one should give up anything

Cutting emissions drastically by giving up these industries is better than continuing to use them.

I said idk if I could do it. But maybe I should.

WE. You and me, provide the demand for things like this:

http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2018/04/the-energy-hogging-dark-side-of-smartphones/

Greenhouse gas emissions of the Information and Communications Industry (ICT)which includes computers and phones but also infrastructure like data centerscould grow from about 1 percent of global emissions in 2007 to over 14 percent in 2040, researchers at McMaster University in Canada report in the Journal of Cleaner Production. Thats more than half the current carbon footprint of the entire transportation sector.

Among devices, smartphones will be worse for the environment. By 2020, their carbon footprint will exceed that of desktop computers, laptops, and displays, the study shows.

To gauge ICT emissions, the duo analyzed the energy it takes to produce and operate consumer devices, as well as the energy it takes to run telecom infrastructure. They found that data centers and telecom networks are energy hogs. Operating them results in about two-thirds of ICT emissions, growing from 215 megatons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2007 to 764 megatons in 2020.

Meanwhile, a smartphones energy cost comes from production. Making a phone accounts for 8595 percent of its annual carbon footprint because manufacturing its electronics and mining the metals that go into them is energy-intensive.

The analysis showed that smartphone emissions will go up from 17 to 125 megatons of carbon dioxide equivalent between 2010 and 2020. Thats an increase from 4 percent to 11 percent of total ICT emissions. This footprint is driven by the pithy two years that a smartphone is used on average. Sadly, less than 1 percent of smartphones get recycled, this and other studies have found.

But you will continue to pretend we can let such industries grow while passing a few laws that "mildly" inconvenience and it will all be good?
Doesn't seem to add up.

Get to quit my job and save the planet? Sounds like a win/win to me.
---

carbon footprint is a function of both power use and % of energy grid that produces carbon

if your energy grid doesn't produce carbon, your power use is multiplied by zero when calculating your carbon footprint

most of the proposed solutions center on changing our energy sources to renewables (and sometimes nuclear, although it is actually more expensive)
---

Sackgurl posted...

most of the proposed solutions center on changing our energy sources to renewables (and sometimes nuclear, although it is actually more expensive)

That article was all about renewables and how that wouldn't solve the problem.
A global cut of emissions by 55% is still catastrophic.

Fuck no. If we burn we burn, it was a good life.
---

FrozenXylophone posted...

A global cut of emissions by 55% is still catastrophic.

the point is it's not a 0 or 1

we're no longer playing catastrophe prevention we're playing catastrophe mitigation, or "how bad will it be" rather than "will it be bad"
---