MY climate actions? Go fuck yourself.
Realizing that I, being an individual and not a massive corporation, have no power to effect any meaningful or notable positive change.
Decades ago the WEF created the idea that it’s not the powerful elites and their corporate machines that are destroying the planet, it’s the individual person.
The term “carbon footprint” is a prime example of this. It places the climate crisis solely upon the individual consumer, rather than the mass producing and polluting conglomerates that produce the very products they need us to consume.
I imagine actions such as snacking on the bourgeoisie would make the biggest difference, realistically speaking
EDIT: okay I read the article and this is actually pretty cool!! It’s very practical and offers concrete actions for all of us.
In previous work, we showed how inequality constrains many people’s capacity to participate in climate action, whether that’s sustainable investing, protesting, or simply having the resources to make different choices. The same people with the most freedom to act often have the biggest footprints.
Don’t breed. Nothing else comes close in reducing your ecological footprint by an enormous margin.
The entire purpose of protecting the climate is to keep earth hospitable for our children. If everyone followed your advice, it would be pointless.
This is silly, because the whole reason we want to avoid the climate apocalypse is so that humanity can keep on existing. If everyone stopped breeding then we would be doing the work of the climate apocalypse for it. Which is silly.
Also, anyone dedicated enough to sacrifice their biological imperative for the environment should definitely have kids and raise them properly, otherwise there’ll be nobody left speaking sense in the next generation.
Also also, even not having kids, pets, a car, going vegan and never travelling is not enough to fix the problem. The people with the power to stop this are the very, very, very rich and the corporations pulling fossil fuels out of the earth and burning them. This is a true fact.There is a huge difference between keep existing and breeding like rabbits.
In 1927 there were approximately 2 billion people on earth. In 1975 we went past 4 billion. 48 years to add 2 billion people. 1998 we went over 6 billion, 23 years for another 2 billion. In 2022 we hit 8 billion.
In 100 years we quadrupled the human population. Do you think we’d be having any of the current ecological problems if we kept the population at 2 billion?
The earth is a finite resource. There cannot be unlimited population growth regardless of how well each individual treats the environment. We’re over 8 billion already, when do we stop? 16? 32? 64? How many billion humans can you fit on a planet?
How would you control the global population? What carrots and what sticks would you use to persuade and coerce people into a managed population level? This discussion tends to get into some very messy corners, because there’s just no properly ethical way to do it.
The earth is an incredibly bountiful place. If we were to stop using up its non renewable resources we would be fine. In terms of space, the population density of earth’s habitable land is about 50 people per square kilometre. Compare that with a dense urban area where it’s over 10,000 people per square kilometre. There’s enough space.
My argument is: yes there are problems with the human race, but attempting to artificially stem population growth is not the answer to them. Providing stable lives for the majority of people globally would be the right place to start.
The reason breeding is bad for the environment, is because of the impact the average person has on climate. If we lived sustainable lives, breeding would not have that much of an impact.
If you try to live a sustainable life to the best of your abilities, and you instill that same mindset and way of living onto your kids, it’s perfectly fine to have kids.
But if you’re going to drive giant trucks powered by oil, eat red meat every day with a glass of milk, use and abuse plastic for everything, and be a massive consumerist, then sure; having kids is terrible for the environment because they will probably also do all of that.
You cannot have a human that has zero environmental footprint. The world population has exploded over the last 100 years. There is no point in lowering your ecological footprint if we’re outbreeding any progress in a few year time.
But if you’re going to drive giant trucks powered by oil, eat red meat every day with a glass of milk, use and abuse plastic for everything, and be a massive consumerist, then sure
You misunderstand the scale of the difference. You can do everything in your power to lower your ecological footprint, recycle at your optimum, don’t eat meat, get rid of your car and only use a bike and public transport, etc. etc. If you have 2 kids and teach them to do the same your ecological footprint will still be many times higher than someone who eats steak every day and drives 3 hummers to work while rolling coal and throwing styrofoam pellets out the window. It’s that big of a difference.
A few numbers to illustrate, the savings in tonnes of co2 equivalent per year.
- recycle: 0.21 tonnes
- replace car with hybrid: 0.51 tonnes
- eat a plant-based diet: 0.82 tonnes
- only use green energy: 1.47 tonnes
- live completely car-free: 2.4 tonnes
- have 1 child less: 58.6 tonnes
It’s not just your kids, it’s also your kid’s kids, and your kid’s kid’s kids’s. etc.
What about serial killing
The anti breeding
Step 1: Get power
Step 2: Start killing off the biggest consumers
Zuckerburg is. He’s making a bunker in Hawaii.
He’s making a tomb in Hawaii.
When he eventually gets burried in his
pyramidbunker, I hope Meta gets burried with him, and sealed so it gets undisturbed for thousands of years.“This is not a place of honor…”
”Look at me ye mighty, and despair”
I can only dream.
