And now I have to feel guilty about this too. What a life :/
You don't have to. People always worry about destroying nature, they don't worry so much about nature destroying them . Let's say you were stranded in the arctic and met one of those poor polar bears. He'd rip you to pieces just for the heck of it. He's a goddamn killer with no remorse. He's not going to feel guilty. So fuck that polar bear and the ice sheet he lives on. We don't owe him a damn thing. We're going to…
This seems like an odd perspective. We aren't polar bears and I don't know why their intellectual incapacity to empathize with their prey should have any bearing on how we feel about destroying them or their environment.
Really - you can't think of any solutions for heating and cooling houses without burning fossil fuels? Electric baseboard heaters have been a thing forever, just power those with solar or wind or nuclear and we're done. My air conditioner is already electric. Drive an electric car, and buy renewable electricity.
The problem I see though is that "drive an electric car" is interpreted all too often as "buy an electric car, and now that you're 'green', do not worry yourself about the fact that you change cars every two years and the footprint of your gas consumption is dwarfed by the footprint of actually making the cars pat self in back ".
Indeed, buying a new electric cars like our grandfathers bought their Fords would be totally counterproductive. But I do not think we have to stop using cars to be quite sustainable - we just have to stop thinking there are only Teslas with their big battery and that everyone needs 500km of nonstop range. Speaking for my family: we currently still feel we need a 7-seat family car with a lot of range, but our second car will be replaced by an electric car with a small battery for sure, as we counted that on about 95% of the days, a 100km range will totally do. Smaller batteries make elektric cars a much more ecologic choice. And we as a society also have to stop thinking that cars have to be the big monsters they have become. We need new offerings, such as the Microlino or the Renault Twizzy.
No. Here is what we actually should do: http://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full... Upd: apart from the carbon tax, of course.
We should actually solve the problem collectively. The externalities should be priced into the cost of fossil fuels with taxation, and alternative technologies researched (which would likely be done by the private sector, facing a carbon tax).
Individualistic solutions to climate change are unfair, dilute, and primitivist.
Really - you can't think of any solutions for heating and cooling houses without burning fossil fuels? Electric baseboard heaters have been a thing forever, just power those with solar or wind or nuclear and we're done. My air conditioner is already electric. Drive an electric car, and buy renewable electricity.
The problem I see though is that "drive an electric car" is interpreted all too often as "buy an electric car, and now that you're 'green', do not worry yourself about the fact that you change cars every two years and the footprint of your gas consumption is dwarfed by the footprint of actually making the cars pat self in back ".
That seems like a separate issue to me, the general consumerism around wanting a new car/phone/widget every year or two. For the time being though, I don't think that's necessarily a problem with electric cars. Sure, some people will sell their electric car and buy a new one every two years, but that creates a used electric car that someone who can't afford a new Tesla can buy, thus removing another ICE vehicle from the road. Of course in an ideal world we'd all drive our 1995 Honda Civics until they rust out from under us and THEN buy an electric car... but that's not realistic.
"Each additional metric ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent — your share of the emissions on a cross-country flight one-way from New York to Los Angeles — shrinks the summer sea ice cover by 3 square meters, or 32 square feet, the authors, Dirk Notz and Julienne Stroeve, found." Those picture-like analogies may be very effective, but I immediately call bullshit. I want to know a percentage. Let's say 100% of air…
That figure is misleading.
In the uk the domnestic aviation accounts for 22% of the transportation sector.
Airtravel is a luxtury and unfortunately in a crises that should be the first to go.
At least domnestic flights should be banned immediately.
Will it solve our Problem? No.
Will it help solve our Problem? Yes, because it is one of the things we can get easily ride of.
Nobody says you can't travel anymore, just take the train.
Heating your home "ruins" the world. You probably wont die at 40*F inside your home, but it sure would suck living that type winter. So does cooling it during the summer, so do many other modern amenities, etc... At some point it begs the question: Is the world you are preserving worth living? Sure, there are billions of people that don't have any of these amenities in life, but it is mostly by necessity and they can…
> Is the world you are preserving worth living? Future generations would like to exist. Perhaps in people year 5000 will put 2019 in the same bucket with the dark ages.
The last human being will eat the last cockroach.
Pollution and climate change are not an existential crisis for humanity. We're just not that powerful (yet). Humans have survived, and thrived, in far worse conditions than we are experiencing today, or that climate change is likely to cause, and it was done without the benefits of modern technology. (Really, conditions are better now because of modern technology.)
Rather than endlessly agonize about individual industries, pursuits, and interests, let’s just tax carbon emissions until they’re reduced to an acceptable level, and let the market sort the rest out. If travel is valuable to you, pay for it.
I think something missing from this, is that people wouldn't just stop doing things. People will still want to travel, and have air conditioning, so large incentives will exist to develop technologies that make this possible without the emissions. The greener alternatives will be relatively less expensive when the externalities of fossil fuels are priced in.
We really have to push for new technologies and be ok with subsidizing them in order to help mass adoption and lower prices. Only a few people really think we should stop doing X or Y (even if they are really vocal). Instead of feeling bad, let us find a better solution that actually makes life even more worthwile. Why not aim for making travelling cheaper and even more available, while at the same time make it environmental friendly, quiter, better? See, I am a private pilot for example. And I HATE those combustion engines we still use on our Cessnas. So outdated, loud and they are quite unreliable. I would totally LOVE the day when I can do a 500k trip with the family using electric technology, as most probably this will be a lot safer to use, it will be quiter and a lot cheaper to fuek (good news: it looks like fouseater planes with good range will become a reality soon).Or thin about cruiseships: why not find a way to use hydrogen (which could be a side product of using renewable energies). Or go back to big sailships again. I do not know about you, but to me, a sustainable future simply looks and feels amazing. We have to change things, but if done right, we don't really have to stop things.
It is when 10,000 people want to walk in the same place
No - stay on trails in high traffic areas and know the basic Leave No Trace principles: https://lnt.org/why/7-principles/
Have you ever hiked the AT? Or certain sections of the PCT? The trail is cut 2-3 feet into the ground in some places. To stake out a tent, you have to drive stakes into fragile alpine soil, which then runs off down the mountain the next time it rains. Leaving no trace is easier said than done.