131–140 of 225 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if you don't want to go vegan, it's easy to eat less meat (and probably good for your health if you have a Western diet). My partner is vegetarian, I eat meat occasionally (and when I do I eat good meat, ethically and sustainably farmed). Reducing meat consumption is by far the easiest way to reduce your carbon footprint.
Lots suggest shifting to chicken is already a good step
This is also a crisis of critical thought. There's an utter lack and/or willingness to imagine any other reality than the current market economy. This goes even to the length of advocating some sort of scorched earth policies to decrease the earth's population since in their mind, the only human is the market-human and is as such inherently a terrible polluter. This is fundamentalism.
Also ironically it is a market of competing ideas to markets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If every single person on Earth did 1 - 4 it still wouldn't be enough. Change has to come from industrial polluters to have a real impact, and the only way to change industry is to stop driving growth through consumption. So... 5) Stop buying stuff .
To that end, in order to stop craving stuff, protect yourself form ads . Most ads are designed to make you want to buy something you don't need. They keep you in a state of permanent dissatisfaction to keep you on the consumption treadmill. Consequently they contribute to both global unhappiness and environment destruction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
State level politics might help. California is trying to be carbon-neutral by 2045: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-california-ac...
Even that is too large IMO. At least in my view of things, I'm cool with states working on this. I wanted something like communities. I'll see.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also would make the food more expensive.
Not if you shared a plot of land with neighbors and contributed to upkeep. Essentially free. Not practical in urban setting, which is why I avoid cities.
If they got this number wrong by 60% for all these years and just noticed, why should I trust anything else about all of their different, conflicting climate models?
But even if there's just a 1% chance of human existence being threatened for something, I'd err to the side of caution.
If they got this number wrong by 60% for all these years and just noticed, why should I trust anything else about all of their different, conflicting climate models?
If they got this number wrong by 60% for all these years and just noticed, why should I trust anything else about all of their different, conflicting climate models?
You don't have to. Scientists could be wrong, they can always be wrong. But even if there's just a 1% chance of human existence being threatened for something, I'd err to the side of caution.
What if it’s only 0.00000001%? Is it still worth erring on the side of caution when there are real costs to doing so?
I keep asking. How to organize at the middle layer ? Not govt or nation wide, but smaller areas. I believe starting small reactions in parallel could accelerate things. Otherwise it's still talk.