Poll of the Day > Fighting climate change: are people unwilling or uneducated?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Right off the bat, I'm ignoring people who deny the existence of climate change as a problem to address. This is for those who acknowledge the reality of climate change and believe it is worth addressing.

The fact is the average person seems to be doing very little to mitigate their personal contributions to the problem. Is it because they don't actually know what has the greatest impact, or because the things with the greatest impact are hardest to give up?

Very, very few people seem willing to take up actions that have the most significant impact on personal energy demands (forego having an additional child, forego excessive recreational air travel).

Many people will opt for LED light bulbs, use reusable shopping bags, and recycle what they can. Yet these actions have barely any impact compared to the rest, and can essentially be ignored from the equation.

You often hear people argue that vegetarian or vegan diets are the only way to save the planet (this is from a climate change point of view, I'm ignoring moral arguments here). While true that greatly reducing or eliminating consumption of the most inefficient meats (cattle, goat, but goat isn't very common in the USA so I'm focusing on beef) has a significant effect, going the step further of completely eliminating all meat or animal products is less beneficial.

Realistically, going from an "average American diet" to "same diet, but replace beef with chicken" is nearly as effective as going vegan. So yes, eliminating beef is a good plan. Go vegetarian or vegan if you want, and yes it helps to some extent, but that additional step truly isn't making as much of a difference as one is led to believe.

What would actually save the planet (in addition to reducing beef consumption) is taking actions that truly reduce personal emissions.
-have fewer children
-take fewer plane trips
-give up single family housing and opt for denser, energy-efficient multi-family complexes (this also facilitates the next point)
-forego as much personal vehicle travel as possible, living close to work/shopping centers so you can walk, bike, or take public transportation for your errands and work commute

Sure, electric vehicles are a great alternative to burning gasoline. But they're only as clean as the source of their energy. Reducing personal vehicle trips and using alternate travel options would also provide people with more physical activity, but that could be an entire topic by itself.


---

3rd option; unable

Stuff like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxykI30fS54


---

sorry to sound like a weird online communist or whatever but this problem is just impossible to solve under unrestricted capitalism. its like a textbook example of negative externalities. you're not going to be able to get everybody in the world to voluntarily stop eating beef

---

Lokarin posted...

3rd option; unable

Stuff like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxykI30fS54

Can be solved by moving to larger cities and/or denser housing. Unable in your example is typically just a smokescreen for unwilling to move and/or share housing.

---

People are pretty unwilling, they just blame it on corporations which is only partly true. It's not like these corporations contribute entirely independent of consumer habits.

There is also a lot of mixed messaging though, we prioritize changes more on being easy than impactful, stuff like bags and straws. We're never gonna get the big changes you talk about because that's all a result of poor planning and infrastructure. You'd need government to actually be willing to tackle it but even if they were is it really that right move to try to get people out of the suburbs with how many useful houses would be left behind, while at the same time new ones need to get built? I'm not trying to sound like a climate defeatist but "have billions of people living in inefficient homes just go to the city" isn't some frictionless thing

Clench281 posted...

Can be solved by moving to larger cities and/or denser housing. Unable in your example is typically just a smokescreen for unwilling to move and/or share housing.

You can't take a massive city that is wholly dependent on car traffic and expect people to not use cars... it could have been done, but the infrastructure is already in place.


---

Clench281 posted...

Can be solved by moving to larger cities and/or denser housing. Unable in your example is typically just a smokescreen for unwilling to move and/or share housing.

Unwilling to move? Poor people don't have that luxury. :/

Clench281 posted...

forego as much personal vehicle travel as possible, living close to work/shopping centers so you can walk, bike, or take public transportation for your errands and work commute

And what happens if you lose your job, switch companies, switch careers, etc. and have to start a new job that is further than walking distance?

It all comes down to infrastructure. And the vast majority of infrastructure in countries, like the USA, is terrible.

Even if I move to the middle of the city, my house is still going to be there. So then do we just have an empty house going to waste? If someone else moves there, then isn't it the same problem again?

It's true that more people could live in my house than just me, but is that an efficiency gain? Two adults might require double the amount of commuting. More trips to the grocery store, things I don't have to do at all like trips to daycare, etc. We have these homes in the suburbs which are more suitable for large families than a lot of the housing in the city, but they might actually be the worst people to occupy them because that's more transportation demand

Clench281 posted...

What would actually save the planet

Is all the governments putting more research and funding into renewable energy and retrofitting buildings to be more efficient

---

how does climate change affect me personally

---

FatalAccident posted...

how does climate change affect me personally

Well being able to eat and breathe is presumable important to you.

---

CoorsLight posted...

Even if I move to the middle of the city, my house is still going to be there. So then do we just have an empty house going to waste? If someone else moves there, then isn't it the same problem again?

It's true that more people could live in my house than just me, but is that an efficiency gain? Two adults might require double the amount of commuting. More trips to the grocery store, things I don't have to do at all like trips to daycare, etc. We have these homes in the suburbs which are more suitable for large families than a lot of the housing in the city, but they might actually be the worst people to occupy them because that's more transportation demand

Two adults living in one unit is more efficient than those two adults living in two units, with everything else held the same, yes. The energy required to heat, cool, and supply other electrical needs for one unit housing two people is much less than twice the amount of two separate units.

---

Xfma100 posted...

Unwilling to move? Poor people don't have that luxury. :/

In almost every case, people could add roommates or housemates/apartmentmates and save a significant amount of money (not even accounting for the energy efficiency) but choose not to. Whether that's multi generational living with your own family, or with friends. I have no idea why communal living is so detested in the USA.

A large problem exists with zoning laws that prevent efficient multi-unit dwellings from being built because wealthy individuals don't want them near single family homes out of fear of reducing property values.

UBI would also go a long way towards untethering people from a specific job and living situation, opening up the possibility of taking time to find a job and living situation that is more feasible without reliance on a car.

---

Didn't a bunch of corporations just sue governments all around the world because they're introducing new legislations to combat the global warming and that they hurt their incomes?
---

Its a mix of unwilling, and unable

One big problem the US has to overcome, its getting people out of the mindset of "needing" to live in suburbia. But also create the mixed use neighborhoods, that have a larger density for things. As of right now, there just isnt housing that can solve it.

---

I'll admit it is unwilling for me, but I also think expecting 300+ million people to do something is way less reasonable then a few governments and/or corporations.

Is it wasteful for me to live alone in a 1900 square foot house with 3 bedrooms? Yes, but I lived in the alternatives and I have no plans to go back. Just thinking of sharing a wall with someone again sounds like torture. Expect me to live with someone? I would rather die.

We have seen it numberous times throughout history, but expecting large amounts of people to do something "for the betterment of mankind" is never going to happen. *CHOUGH*COVID*COUGH* The only way you are actually going to get anything done is by creating change in smaller groups like corporations. There are what, a few thousand large corporations you need to make change? Way easier then trying to convince 300+ million people.

---

I'm not sure how you expect change at all then.

How, for example, would one expect beef consumption to decrease without actions from individuals? Corporations will continue to produce it if it's in demand, and if it's in demand by most people, any legislation to tax or limit its production or consumption would fail.

(Personally I think that beef and gasoline should be priced much higher than they currently are, to reflect their true costs to society. But any transition would need to be gradual because the country is overly reliant on personal vehicle transportation.)

---

Clench281 posted...

Many people will opt for LED light bulbs, use reusable shopping bags, and recycle what they can. Yet these actions have barely any impact compared to the rest, and can essentially be ignored from the equation.

And the rest of the options you listed below and throughout this topic have barely any impact compared to the problems caused by corporations and governments around the world unwilling to change because they like money.

I'm pretty responsible with my own footprint as is my household, within reason. I could make more changes if I want but it's a the tiniest drop in the bucket compared to the waterfall that is unchecked capitalism

---

OrangeDawn posted...

And the rest of the options you listed below and throughout this topic have barely any impact compared to the problems caused by corporations and governments around the world unwilling to change because they like money.

I'm pretty responsible with my own footprint as is my household, within reason. I could make more changes if I want but it's a the tiniest drop in the bucket compared to the waterfall that is unchecked capitalism

Those companies aren't just burning gasoline for the fun of it, it's to meet a demand that exists because of end consumers. Your attitude is just shifting the blame to absolve yourself so you can feel better.

---

Clench281 posted...

Those companies aren't just burning gasoline for the fun of it, it's to meet a demand that exists because of end consumers. Your attitude is just shifting the blame to absolve yourself so you can feel better.

I mean, I don't feel better anyway. I know the situation is fucked and the chance to fix it has long been passed by thanks to past generations. It's not as simple as shifting demand because food industries and gas corporations have their fangs buried into governments around the world and will continue to exert their influence and receive subsidies as well as lobby for restrictions on alternatives. There is no winning and the individual consumer should not bear the brunt of the responsibility for a problem that has been brewing a time period a lot longer than I have been alive.

---

Doesnt really help the environment that the west coast states are on fire for about five or six months out of the year.

---

A lot of people wouldn't want to live in such a condensed area, I'm not sure why you would want to force that

I got you on the no air travel and no children part

---

Clench281 posted...
How, for example, would one expect beef consumption to decrease without actions from individuals?

Produce better alternatives.

Look at smoking as an example, decades upon decades of telling people cigarettes are bad, telling people to stop, creating laws making it harder for people to get them, etc. In the end, what has been the biggest thing to reduce cigarette smoking? Vape. All it took was producing something better that people didn't know they wanted and in a few short years you almost never hear about cigarettes anymore.

You are not going to convince people to stop driving, so you produce electric cars that are easier to maintain and better for the environment (although getting the cost down would help a ton in getting more people to adopt them). You are not going to convince people to stop using electricity so you make electricity from cleaner sources like wind, solar, and hydroelectric. You are not going to convince people to stop eating beef so make beef artificial beef that is cheaper and has less of a carbon footprint (and very close to the original). That is how you can solve the issue, don't change the individual, change the demand.

---

Ok, beef consumption is something that most people DO have a lot of control over... that's a fair one to go after.


---

Unwilling for sure. I mean, even after reading the OP, Im unwilling to do a lot of those things. The bug ones, at least. Ive done the small things like using LED light bulbs, reusable shopping bags, and recycle when I can. But not the bigger things

Clench281 posted...

Unable in your example is typically just a smokescreen for unwilling to move and/or share housing.

They also could be unable to move Could be for many different reasons A big one being financial Or no place to move in the area youre trying to move to

Lokarin posted...

You can't take a massive city that is wholly dependent on car traffic and expect people to not use cars... it could have been done, but the infrastructure is already in place.

This reminds me of something. Before malls became what they are today, they were suppose to all be like shopping centers. Where you could buy clothes and groceries, and had living areas nearby. Close enough to walk to easily That what I heard, at least We even have a place like that back home. Multiple places, tbh And they do seem to be more popular, too
---

The general public is both unable and uneducated. The people largely responsible for propagating it for short-term profit are unwilling.

---

Clench281 posted...

How, for example, would one expect beef consumption to decrease without actions from individuals? Corporations will continue to produce it if it's in demand, and if it's in demand by most people, any legislation to tax or limit its production or consumption would fail.

You make it illegal or tax it so much most people can't afford it. This is much easier than convincing everyone to just stop because you have to convince like 60% of people instead of 90%. It still seems pretty challenging but it's much more plausible than your idea


---

Clench281 posted...

Two adults living in one unit is more efficient than those two adults living in two units, with everything else held the same, yes. The energy required to heat, cool, and supply other electrical needs for one unit housing two people is much less than twice the amount of two separate units.

This seems like a pretty deliberate misrepresentation of what I was saying lol. Even if this is a good point... okay say two people living in two units absorb into one unit, you still have the problem of the vacant unit that will now either be going to waste or will just have a new person doing those same energy consuming things. If we had a huge housing deficit this would be a great way to help solve two problems at once, but instead we have the opposite problem of tons of people being homeless despite tons of vacant houses.

PunishedOni posted...

You make it illegal or tax it so much most people can't afford it. This is much easier than convincing everyone to just stop because you have to convince like 60% of people instead of 90%. It still seems pretty challenging but it's much more plausible than your idea

But I think what he's saying is that it's political suicide since it's not a popular enough idea for people to change on their own. And I know that someone's political career doesn't matter but even if they get something like that through it'll just be a wedge issue for opposition. We might need to live with that though.

I do think you can take more political action elsewhere, like going after fossil fuel companies. I think most people hate fossil fuel companies at this point

climate change is happening cause Arv has too much sex

---

CoorsLight posted...

But I think what he's saying is that it's political suicide since it's not a popular enough idea for people to change on their own. And I know that someone's political career doesn't matter but even if they get something like that through it'll just be a wedge issue for opposition. We might need to live with that though.

I do think you can take more political action elsewhere, like going after fossil fuel companies. I think most people hate fossil fuel companies at this point

yeah it would definitely be politically polarized. idk that im optimistic about it happening, im just much more optimistic about a carbon tax than I am about everybody voluntarily giving up beef and driving less.

I think a carbon tax and dividend scheme might be a good way to get people behind it
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/CarbonTax.pdf

---

Clench281 posted...

In almost every case, people could add roommates or housemates/apartmentmates and save a significant amount of money (not even accounting for the energy efficiency) but choose not to. Whether that's multi generational living with your own family, or with friends. I have no idea why communal living is so detested in the USA.

This is already happening to some extent though. Due to the astronomical increase in housing and rent costs, more and more people are living with family, friends, or roommates now.

Clench281 posted...

UBI would also go a long way towards untethering people from a specific job and living situation, opening up the possibility of taking time to find a job and living situation that is more feasible without reliance on a car.

You are correct, but how can I take personal responsibility for something I have very little control over? What else can I do besides voting and spreading awareness? And how can someone of middle, working, and even lower class status make as big of an impact as wealthy corporations and politicians that actively lobby against UBI? Which brings us to the next point:

Clench281 posted...

A large problem exists with zoning laws that prevent efficient multi-unit dwellings from being built because wealthy individuals don't want them near single family homes out of fear of reducing property values.

Again, wealthy individuals are more to blame than the average joe. And these same wealthy individuals who whine about multi-unit dwellings lowering their property values are also responsible for the current spike of property values rising due to buying so many properties. Not to mention some of those zoning laws you are referring to exist because of wealthy individuals investing money into creating those laws.

LeetCheet posted...

Didn't a bunch of corporations just sue governments all around the world because they're introducing new legislations to combat the global warming and that they hurt their incomes?

Exactly. It's extremely easy to say that the average person should take more personal responsibility when certain corporations are responsible for actively lobbying against mitigating climate change and intentionally spread misinformation about climate change. Heck, I would even go as far as to say that these corporations and wealthy individuals want you to put the blame the average person instead of focusing on their own exploits. I'm not saying the average person should take no responsibility, but they definitely are not the only ones responsible.

I mean, look at it this way. Who owns multiple large properties? And who spends more time using boats and planes as transportation for recreational and business use? Lower classes do use cars as transportation, but only because they do not have access to any alternatives. And the people of lower classes currently have to use vehicles to get to their jobs so that they can afford to feed their families and keep a roof over their head.
Too many people in this world can only focus on how they are going to get their next meal or shelter. Sadly, they don't have the luxury to do what they can to combat climate change.

Not to mention, how many items do you currently own or use that were created by practices that harm the planet and contribute to climate change? Would you be willing to give up phones, computers, televisions, etc? Would you be willing to also give up luxuries such as foreign food and certain national foods? Because transporting food and other items from around the world by using planes, trucks, and cargo ships definitely isn't good for the environment.

Oh, and when it comes to recycling... Please reduce and reuse before you recycle. Most plastic can not be recycled iirc.

So I guess that while a huge portion of the population are uneducated, the vast majority are just unwilling to change. Either because they don't have the luxury to, or because they don't want to give up all of the luxuries of the modern world.

I do all the Rs. Reduce, reuse, recycle. Unless youre actually going to stop the people in dangerous organizations like the cartel from dumping chemicals then dont bother whining about normal living needs.

Clench281 posted...

The fact is the average person seems to be doing very little to mitigate their personal contributions to the problem.

The fact is that the average person seems to personally contribute jack shit to the problem and we need to be bitching at mega corporations instead.

---

Zareth posted...

The fact is that the average person seems to personally contribute jack shit to the problem and we need to be bitching at mega corporations instead.

I don't think individuals can contribute much to solving the problem through consumer actions, but I do think this kind of claim is a little misleading.

If we want to solve climate change without assuming some advanced technology will do it, people's quality of life is gonna dip noticeably. Those corporations (with a few weird exceptions like crypto companies) are providing things people want at unsustainably low prices off the backs of high CO2 emissions

---

Zareth posted...

The fact is that the average person seems to personally contribute jack shit to the problem and we need to be bitching at mega corporations instead.

Again, this is a cop out. Any single individual is personally responsible for a small fraction of emissions, this is true. But there are billions of people in the world, and the sum total of their contributions is what makes a problem.

Do you think it would be responsible for Americans to eat an additional pound of beef per adult per day just because any individual would only contribute a small amount? ("only" 0.0000038% of the massive total of 260 million pounds per day?)

---

Clench281 posted...

this is a cop out.

Way to miss the point

---

ya, there's lots of little things some people can do and can't; and there's lots of little things different people can do and can't... it's something that can't be easily umbrella'd

---

FatalAccident posted...

Way to miss the point

I addressed the point directly, twice now. I'm sorry you're not getting it.

---

Clench281 posted...

I addressed the point directly, twice now. I'm sorry you're not getting it.

i think you don't actually understand the point at all. but it seems like if it was possible to make you get it through forum posts it would have happened by now

---

PunishedOni posted...

i think you don't actually understand the point at all. but it seems like if it was possible to make you get it through forum posts it would have happened by now

If you're gonna make such low effort posts you may as well just go with "no u" next time

---

Clench281 posted...

If you're gonna make such low effort posts you may as well just go with "no u" next time

it was actually a pretty high effort post but ok


---

Clench youre the one making a topic about how you dont understand why people dont/cant make a change to improve their carbon footprint.

But when someone raises a genuinely valid point (which youve actually misunderstood), your response is to stick your fingers in your ears and go lalalala.

people like you are the reason the climate change discussion goes down the toilet as soon as it begins.

Its pretty much on brand for you to make a topic just to preach at people and virtue signal without actually wanting to have a genuine discussion. I dont know why I expected anything more out of you lol

---

Yeah this is all "ACTUALLY you're lazy" or "ACTUALLY you're not THAT poor" ad nauseam

---

Most people dont care about anyone but themselves.

And good luck with the less-children thing. Population is the biggest contributor, but the whole reason we immigrate people is to offset the fact that people are having less children here at home. Less people is not good for the economy. At least thats what they say.

---

FatalAccident posted...

Clench youre the one making a topic about how you dont understand why people dont/cant make a change to improve their carbon footprint.

But when someone raises a genuinely valid point (which youve actually misunderstood), your response is to stick your fingers in your ears and go lalalala.

people like you are the reason the climate change discussion goes down the toilet as soon as it begins.

Its pretty much on brand for you to make a topic just to preach at people and virtue signal without actually wanting to have a genuine discussion. I dont know why I expected anything more out of you lol

I explained why I thought it was a cop out and provided a hypothetical to explain my view.

You then responded with an entirely unproductive "way to miss the point" without further detail, so don't fucking accuse me of not trying to have a genuine discussion you massive hypocrite

---

Clench I would still like to know what your "just move to the city" plan has in store for all the suburban and rural housing. There's definitely a case to be made to stop new developments (especially since they're all ugly and generic and overpriced now lol no big loss) but what should we do with the existing ones? Repurpose them? Cut our losses and just let them rot in abandonment? Reclaim as many of the materials and appliances as possible?

Furthermore, there isn't (yet) evidence that high urban centers are cleaner than rural areas... maybe the opposite should be the case and everyone move into farms

---

Lokarin posted...

Furthermore, there isn't (yet) evidence that high urban centers are cleaner than rural areas

What exactly do you mean by this and where did you get this idea? Knowing you this just sounds like something you pulled out of your ass. Also if you're talking about general pollution then yeah a densely populated area is going to be worse but we're talking about contributions per person. And we're also just talking about the lifestyle of residing there, not about every person who passes through

Basically, the claim is "city living makes for a smaller footprint" and it sounds like you are saying "cities have more pollution", which doesn't necessarily refute that

CoorsLight posted...

What exactly do you mean by this and where did you get this idea? Knowing you this just sounds like something you pulled out of your ass. Also if you're talking about general pollution then yeah a densely populated area is going to be worse but we're talking about contributions per person. And we're also just talking about the lifestyle of residing there, not about every person who passes through

Basically, the claim is "city living makes for a smaller footprint" and it sounds like you are saying "cities have more pollution", which doesn't necessarily refute that

I'm not making a claim either way - I'm sayin Clench hasn't provided a source saying urban is automatically better

---