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

(+) Yeah! (+)

CoorsLight posted...

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?

This is a big question, but it boils down to how we pair peoples' housing situation with their most abundant travel, which tends to be their work commute. How do we most efficiently organize people to minimize miles driven. And I don't think it means we need to have nobody living in rural or suburban areas, but people should live in those areas if it makes sense for their job, and on top of that it should be made easier to travel (whether by bus, shuttle, etc) from suburbs to where they work.

First, noting that the number of people who live in rural areas is relatively small (less than one sixth) and a fraction of those people do so because their occupation brings them there. It'll never be feasible for EVERYONE to move from rural areas, because there are good and services that necessitate some workers in those areas. But then you have those living in rural areas who make long distance commutes to a major urban center for work. If it's office work, well, I definitely like the trend of telework being as flexible as possible for jobs that could realistically be done fully remote. Hopefully workers advocate for this as covid starts to become less of an issue.

Ideally those living in rural (or even suburban) areas would be working locally or teleworking to avoid the work commute entirely. How do we encourage this distribution of people though? It would be great if laws could be used to changed many peoples' behavior simultaneously. I really don't see it happening, but gasoline should honestly be much more expensive than it currently is. If it cost $15 (or some value closer to the true cost paid by society from gasoline use) a gallon instead of $3 or $4, people might think twice about going on a trip to the grocery just for that one ingredient they want, and instead consolidate their trips more efficiently. Or be more likely to carpool. It really is depressing to look out on major highways and see 90% of vehicles carrying a single passenger.

While it would fuck up too many peoples' lives for this price to increase immediately, increases on gasoline taxes (or decreases in subsidies) planned out ahead of time would certainly encourage people to modify their behavior or living situation to reduce gasoline use. This problematically will affect the poorer slice of the population who is stuck without an EV (which is only sightly better than gasoline fueled cars, until we start producing a much greater fraction of our energy from clean methods). The increasing financial pressure might encourage people to change their housing situation to be located more proximal to work.

Many people living in suburbs still work in metropolitan areas. It would be great for there to be either private or public transportation from suburban residential areas into the metropolitan area, and in fact this model exists in a lot of areas around large cities. The only way to get people to use this "less convenient" method would be a financial incentive, if we can't appeal to their desire to reduce personal emissions.

And again, city zoning laws that prevent efficient multiple unit apartment complexes to be built near major public transportation hubs? Those are bullshit and need to go.

---

Clench281 posted...

And again, city zoning laws that prevent efficient multiple unit apartment complexes to be built near major public transportation hubs? Those are bulls*** and need to go.

Ya, that's known as the Stroad problem

---

Lokarin posted...

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

Living in a city doesn't automatically mean that one lowers their footprint, but living in a city facilitates lower footprint behaviors as a possibility. Living without a car is feasible when you can walk to work and to the grocery store. Living without a car isn't feasible when you live 20 miles from work or a grocery store.

---

Clench281 posted...

Living without a car isn't feasible when you live 20 miles from work or a grocery store.

That's pretty dang rural.

When I lived in a town of 300 people we were all in walking distance of everything

---

I mean, that's not far off from the average American's work commute (16 miles)

---

Clench281 posted...

I mean, that's not far off from the average American's work commute (16 miles)

ya, that definitely needs fixing

---

A majority of people will never significantly sacrifice personal comfort, convenience, or need for the long term benefit of future generations no matter how much they might be preaching about it.

This is not limited to the subject of climate change, this is the same for almost everything.
---

Clench281 posted...

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

Bro I dont know why youre getting all menstrual and defensive about this when youre the one missing the point and not addressing it lol

I didnt think I had to explain this to you but Zareth makes a good point that our contribution individually is absolutely jack shit to the climate problem in comparison to companies who have a massive incentive not to improve their carbon footprint at the moment, you just completely disregard the point by going on an irrelevant tangent with your analogy and not actually addressing the point that the biggest offenders are doing fuck all.

Me you and Zareth can go vegan and walk to work and decide to have no kids, which are all significant changes to our lives but does literally jack shit to the problem because you have China, the United States, and India pumping out 20 billion tons of CO2.

Unless theres a concerted and coordinated effort by the biggest offending countries and companies to make a legitimate change with legit timescales and penalties why should I upend my entire lifestyle lol

Your bottom up approach is pointless, and gives no incentive for people to make a change. For me personally it should start at the top. I recycle, cycle to work couple times a month and all energy in my flat is 100% renewable so I have no issue with being sustainable. But Im not going to make more life altering changes in an effort to counteract billion pound companies who are incentivised to do the exact opposite.

Your way of looking at things starts with the individual which is backwards. You dont demolish a building by pulling out small, non-structural bricks one brick at a time. You demolish a building by ripping out the largest structural elements holding up the building. Just like you cant tackle climate change by asking the individual to do shit whilst doing fuck all with companies and countries.

---

yeah, the idea that its on all of us to combat climate change and not the massive corporations doing 99.9% of the damage is laughably naive

---

FatalAccident posted...

Bro I dont know why youre getting all menstrual and defensive about this when youre the one missing the point and not addressing it lol

I didnt think I had to explain this to you but Zareth makes a good point that our contribution individually is absolutely jack shit to the climate problem in comparison to companies who have a massive incentive not to improve their carbon footprint at the moment, you just completely disregard the point by going on an irrelevant tangent with your analogy and not actually addressing the point that the biggest offenders are doing fuck all.

Me you and Zareth can go vegan and walk to work and decide to have no kids, which are all significant changes to our lives but does literally jack shit to the problem because you have China, the United States, and India pumping out 20 billion tons of CO2.

Unless theres a concerted and coordinated effort by the biggest offending countries and companies to make a legitimate change with legit timescales and penalties why should I upend my entire lifestyle lol

Your bottom up approach is pointless, and gives no incentive for people to make a change. For me personally it should start at the top. I recycle, cycle to work couple times a month and all energy in my flat is 100% renewable so I have no issue with being sustainable. But Im not going to make more life altering changes in an effort to counteract billion pound companies who are incentivised to do the exact opposite.

Your way of looking at things starts with the individual which is backwards. You dont demolish a building by pulling out small, non-structural bricks one brick at a time. You demolish a building by ripping out the largest structural elements holding up the building. Just like you cant tackle climate change by asking the individual to do shit whilst doing fuck all with companies and countries.

You're essentially making a tragedy of the commons or prisoners dilemma argument. "Why should I bother doing anything if other people aren't?" Or, "I don't want to change because it won't make a difference until most people make a change."

As an aside, this answers my original question very directly. Unwilling.

But my response to this is twofold: first, that consumer choices do matter. Second, that perspective is even more of a reason to adopt these behaviors: because it can convince others to do the same when they see you doing it.

In truth, most people misunderstand the phrase "most carbon emissions can be traced back to only 100 companies" which is probably referencing the carbon majors report, which more specifically makes the claim that

"100 companies have been the source of more than 70% of the worlds greenhouse gas emissions since 1988"

This is actually saying saying that these 100 energy-producing companies have provided the energy responsible for those emissions. If you fill up your gasoline tank at the pump and go on a long road trip? Those emissions were counted towards the company providing the fuel. Consumer choices DO matter, because this fuel is ultimately being burned by, or for, consumers. Telling consumers their choices don't matter only encourages more wasteful behavior.

Let's also squash the idea that it 100% falls on individual choices to fight climate change. I don't think anyone here has made that argument, even if we've been primarily discussing what individuals can do. Mostly because that's what's within our immediate power as individuals.

I would agree that companies share responsibility in providing products and services in a reasonably sustainable way. That is, in providing consumers with what they want, companies should not be acting with disregard for their actions. But this entails responsible production of their goods, and not simply "make fewer goods."

Consider Amazon's carbon footprint from delivery of goods. Efficient delivery has the potential to be much more carbon friendly than all consumers driving to the store, because multiple trips are consolidated into one delivery route. But that isn't really happening because of consumer choices and demand for instant shipping for a single random good. All those vehicles require lots of fuel, and even if they had a fully electric fleet, it's still quite the footprint. How do we deal with that? Amazon can and does give incentives to reduce the number of delivery trips to your address by offering credit for no-rush shipping or subscriptions, where Amazon is then able to schedule your delivery to coincide with other local deliveries, optimizing the number of deliveries per mile traveled. But I'd guess most people just click that same-day delivery button for instant gratification.

That won't change unless either the individual changes their attitude about the effects of shipping, or external incentives (like increased cost for rapid delivery, increased credit for no-rush shipping) change their minds for them. The latter isn't going to happen unless the true cost of gasoline is realized by shipping companies and consumers.

The former is an example of how change is achieved by educating people about the impact of their choices as a consumer, and this applies to every choice a consumer can make, not just Amazon shopping. I just chose Amazon because it's ubiquitous.

The latter is an example of companies acting more responsibly. Unfortunately such actions aren't taken up because of the simple reason they would cost the company more money. If you're fatalistic about individual consumers not making an environmentally responsible choice, then you would probably agree it's even less likely for companies to do so when it hurts their bottom line. Yes, they'll have to be forced to change via laws/taxes; and those policy changes come from public support, which is reinforced by having a consumer base that is aware of the impact of their consumption.

---

And speaking of small and easy individual choices we can make to improve the world, how about we try to eliminate sexist retorts like "going menstrual" or "PMSing" from our vocab?

---

Combination of "not my problem" + "what I contribute is just a drop in the bucket" mentalities, I would imagine

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/pr2wmg/the_companies_polluting_the_planet_have_spent/

Tldr TC is a corporate shill.

Clench281 posted...

And speaking of small and easy individual choices

Uprooting one's life is neither small nor easy. You just see people as statistics and actions as words.

---

a lot of us are just out here trying to make enough money that climate change wont effect us. way easier than fixing a broken planet.

Veedrock- posted...

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/pr2wmg/the_companies_polluting_the_planet_have_spent/

Tldr TC is a corporate shill.

Uprooting one's life is neither small nor easy. You just see people as statistics and actions as words.

Yes, I'm obviously fighting for corporations by encouraging less consumption. By advocating for consuming less gas, taking fewer flights and eating less beef, I'm clearly in the pockets of big business.

I'd wager you didn't even read past the title of that submission, seeing as it also states that individuals share the responsibility and that their choices matter. For the described targets to be met in a timely manner (of coal, oil and gas remaining in the ground) there needs to be both a shift in the source of our energy demands and a reduction of individual energy use.

And the things I described vary in ease. The biggest thing one can do, not having an additional kid, is financially easier than having an additional kid.


---

Clench281 posted...

If you fill up your gasoline tank at the pump and go on a long road trip? Those emissions were counted towards the company providing the fuel.

no it isn't. the emissions from your car burning gas are personal emissions. emissions to bring the fuel to the gas station would be an example of industrial emissions. please educate yourself if youre gonna write 12 paragraph posts about this stuff lol

---

PunishedOni posted...

no it isn't. the emissions from your car burning gas are personal emissions. emissions to bring the fuel to the gas station would be an example of industrial emissions. please educate yourself if youre gonna write 12 paragraph posts about this stuff lol

https://fullfact.org/news/are-100-companies-causing-71-carbon-emissions/

Are 100 companies causing 71% of carbon emissions?

Of the estimated greenhouse gas emissions from human activity (excluding certain sources like agricultural methane) between 1988 and 2015, 71% originated from 100 fossil fuel producers. This includes the emissions released when the fossil fuels they sold were subsequently used by their customers.


---

Clench281 posted...

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

You're the one who always ignore people when they say why they can't do something.

Clench281 posted...

And speaking of small and easy individual choices we can make to improve the world, how about we try to eliminate sexist retorts like "going menstrual" or "PMSing" from our vocab?

Will that solve climate change?
---

Revelation34 posted...

Will that solve climate change?

And speaking of small and easy individual choices we can make to improve the world

I bolded the important part for you, Rev. :)

---

Sarcasthma posted...

And speaking of small and easy individual choices we can make to improve the world

I bolded the important part for you, Rev. :)

Well an improvement isn't the same as a solution.
---

Revelation34 posted...

You're the one who always ignore people when they say why they can't do something.

Responding to someone and explaining why I disagree with their stated inability to do something? That sounds pretty far from ignoring someone. If I were ignoring someone I wouldn't respond at all.

---

Revelation34 posted...

Well an improvement isn't the same as a solution.

No shit, Rev. That doesn't mean improvements aren't good.

---

The one thing America has done over the past 4 decades or so is dumbing everybody down. You have some people who believe that there's climate change and you have some who don't believe it that there is.

Bottom line is, the people who stand to make gobs of money from exploiting the planet will never admit that climate change is real simply because that would cut into their profit-making ability.

---

ah yeah thats my bad, the 70% number is garbage. i didn't notice what stat they were citing.

edit: wait nobody else even cited the 70% number. you just picked a strawman lol. yeah youre right the bad statistic you cherrypicked is bad. stuff like IPCC and EPA reports is gonna put transportation in a different section than industry

---

Clench281 posted...

Responding to someone and explaining why I disagree with their stated inability to do something? That sounds pretty far from ignoring someone. If I were ignoring someone I wouldn't respond at all.

Ignoring as in ignoring what reasons they give to say why they are "wrong".
---

Revelation34 posted...

Ignoring as in ignoring what reasons they give to say why they are "wrong".

Yes. That's called "disagreeing" when I provide reasons for why I don't accept those reasons.

---

Clench281 posted...

Yes. That's called "disagreeing" when I provide reasons for why I don't accept those reasons.

So you're saying you literally "disagree" in every thread you make?
---

Well, you're right that this board does seem to have a lot of people like you with shitty opinions, and I don't hesitate to call them out.

---

Clench281 posted...

"Why should I bother doing anything if other people aren't?" Or, "I don't want to change because it won't make a difference until most people make a change."

I mean, this does make sense. Why upend my life and make it worse if it does nothing to help because just me and a few people do it. Especially when all of that work is outdone by the big corporations?

Clench281 posted...

that consumer choices do matter.

Doesn't this only matter if enough people change, as well... If only a very small percentage change, that probably won't change much, either... It would need to be a somewhat significant amount...

Clench281 posted...

like increased cost for rapid delivery

This is already a thing, though... Which doesn't seem to be working. And by trying to keep raising it, you run the risk of more people going out to buy it on their own, which is apparently worse...

Veedrock- posted...

Uprooting one's life is neither small nor easy.

I will say I agree to this, tbh... It's great that it works for some people, but it definitely won't work for everybody. And would make some peoples lives worse... People do what's best for them and their family. And while it could be good for the future, if it's not good for the family, they won't do it...

Clench281 posted...

The biggest thing one can do, not having an additional kid, is financially easier than having an additional kid.

It depends. It can be easy to just not have a kid. But it won't be easy to convince someone who's be dead set on having a certain number of kids to just not have that amount... Especially if they're financially prepared...
---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

the idea that its on all of us to combat climate change and not the massive corporations doing 99.9% of the damage is laughably naive

---

I would probably kill myself before moving to a city. No way I could stand to be that close to other people. I'm perfectly happy where I am and have no plans to move. I guess in your mind that would put me in the 'unwilling' category.

For what it is worth, most of my food is locally grown; eggs, apples, cider, corn, tomatoes, potatoes, etc. I couldn't put up with the awful city food, especially corn. Once you have walked across the street and picked your own all of the store-bought stuff is just terrible.

Additionally, the global warming issue isn't going to be solved by individual efforts. If you want to solve it you have to start somewhere that will actually make an impact like China or India, and good luck with that.

How much of the Chinese/Indian emissions are from outsourced western corporations? I see this talking point a lot but it just seems like a different way of shifting blame off American corporations.

yes to both

---

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.

*surprised pikachu*

a liberal capable of putting 1+1 together

---

11110111011 posted...

Additionally, the global warming issue isn't going to be solved by individual efforts. If you want to solve it you have to start somewhere that will actually make an impact like China or India, and good luck with that.

our companies export labor to china which is responsible for most of their pollution, india is making steps to become greener in their own way and we are in a position to help them become greener if we actually care enough to put effort into it

---

FatalAccident posted...

Way to miss the point

no, you all missed his point, which is that your boogeyman corporations can only exist to begin with due to customers, who are individuals who can decide to stop being customers of said company

---

Wanded posted...

no, you all missed his point, which is that your boogeyman corporations can only exist to begin with due to customers, who are individuals who can decide to stop being customers of said company

But youd have to get most people to change for the corporations to change, which wouldnt happen. Meaning the corporations would still need to be the ones to change first
---

i can see clench moving to the right throughout this thread and it's hilarious

trump is starting to move out of some peoples heads which lets them finally see how inane libs are

---

LinkPizza posted...

But youd have to get most people to change for the corporations to change, which wouldnt happen. Meaning the corporations would still need to be the ones to change first

isn't that just quitter mentality? if that was true nothing would have ever changed, what good change didn't start from the people first but was top to bottom?

like clench already explained, your suggestion is a loop with no out, you need people to truly believe and care in order to vote for those things, if they truly believe and care they would also do those things themselves, otherwise they don't truly believe and care, which signals all the other voters not to vote that way, and in fact encourage them to vote the other way due to disgust of hypocrisy.

edit: also the usual "banning those things sure would solve everything, like when we banned drugs :D" point

---

Wanded posted...

isn't that just quitter mentality? if that was true nothing would have ever changed, what good change didn't start from the people first but was top to bottom?

Maybe its quitter mentality. But I also think its how things are these days, tbh And for the good changes, it still needs to be a good amount of people before Chan. Really starts to happen. But I dont think that many people will change whole the corporations are spitting out things they want/need Like while there are some things I would change, none of it are big changes that do much And Ill probably get the stuff I want/need until I cant. And many people are probably like that, I think If they werent, things
Should have changed by now

Wanded posted...

like clench already explained, your suggestion is a loop with no out, you need people to truly believe and care in order to vote for those things, if they truly believe and care they would also do those things themselves, otherwise they don't truly believe and care, which signals all the other voters not to vote that way, and in fact encourage them to vote the other way due to disgust of hypocrisy.

Many people say they truly care and believe, but wont do anything about it. Why? Because maybe they dont think they have any power, or cant do anything about it. Or they think all they need to do is vote a person who cares about it, and will do something. That said, even in that case, if that worked, it would mean someone in power did something about it. And the in my thing the individual did was help to give power to that person. Which depending on what that persons stance was, many may not have voted them because of that reason

Wanded posted...

edit: also the usual "banning those things should would solve everything, like when we banned drugs :D" point

It only works sometimes. Like when banning alcohol didnt really work and made things worse
---

And don't forget how the giant corporations is actively lobbying against climate change efforts.
---

LeetCheet posted...

And don't forget how the giant corporations is actively lobbying against climate change efforts.

Which actually doesn't make sense since if their customers die from climate change they won't be able to make any more money

---

I admit that after a big streak of posts I can't see I was curious to log out and see what kind of wild takes I'm missing. Turns out not that wild but yikes at trying to portray it as a right wing mindset just because you're right wing and believe it. I guess in a way "individual responsibility" is on brand, but in America the right has little to no interest in climate action at all

The problem is that there is no clear cut solution to get behind.

its more complicated than the issue w aerosol cans damaging the ozone layer- that was a simple easily presentable solution.

also you cant stop climate change. A part of it is natural so all you can do is minimize the impact of humans on it.

also even if every major power in the world snapped to it tomorrow (ignoring any economic balances), then the third world countries who are beginning to industrialize would simply not ever get behind it because it would mean more immediate disaster for them. And those nations put far more crap into the environment because they have zero restrictions or regulations.

thats actually the key issue w climate change and the biggest hurdle. Getting the developing nations of the world and not just major countries on board who ultimately outnumber us.

you can yell climate change climate change all you want but if you dont have a viable realistic solution then you arent solving anything. If you arent willing to admit the difficulty of the issue then you arent solving anything either.
that doesnt mean not to do anything but america China England and highly industrial first world nations cutting down their emissions to near zero doesnt solve the problem. If you dont recognize the magnitude of the difficulty of a solution you dont know the problem.

---

Conner4REAL posted...

also you cant stop climate change. A part of it is natural

People need to eliminate this from their vocabulary in talking about climate change. This has been part of the denial narrative in the past (well it still is, but it has continuously morphed form). I'm not saying you are a denialist, but I don't see the point in saying something that feeds into that narrative, even by accident. We do need to be honest and realistic, yes, but saying this is adding nothing of substance to the conversation. It kind of goes without saying that what we're talking about is controlling what we (think we) can control. And it's not about ending climate events but damage control.

Indeed; A part of the science is about hoping it IS more man-made since it also means it's more man-correctable.

But we do know a lot of it can be corrected - just look at the ozone hole data after the banning of CFCs


---

my probably wrong not very strongly held opinion/rough intuition is that this is something that should be dealt with at a macro-scale not a micro-scale. for example, inventing fusion power will do a crap ton more than me moving closer to work (not that I don't want to do that).

---

Yup, according to a 2015 chart - the Energy Sector makes up about 47% of all greenhouse gases, the top being China Coal and Russian Oil

America is on the list multiple times, but that smaller rates each since America actually has a diverse energy sector which is kinda encouraging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_contributors_to_greenhouse_gas_emissions

---

The average person doing anything to mitigate their impact on the environment is completely useless while Chinese, Russian, Indian, American, and tons of other companies exist.

---

Democrats argue amongst themselves and refuse to fight for even a modest carbon tax of $15 per ton of CO2. Each dollar per ton translates to roughly one cent increase per gallon of gasoline for consumers. This is well below economist-recommended carbon tax values of $100 per ton, roughly a $1 increase per gallon.

The planet is fucked.

---