Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5296 readers

615 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

What if Everyone Did Something to Slow Climate Change? Researchers are looking at the impact that individuals’ actions can have on reducing carbon emissions — and the best ways to get people to adopt (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

79 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What’s more realistic to change? A few dozen companies or billions of people?

My comment was meant to encourage the readers of the thread to make a change. So I think I'll switch around your question.

What's more realistic to change? YOUR own consumption habits or corporations?

What's ironic is your argument is perfect for discouraging individuals from making changes in their own lives which would improve climate change. Who is the shill?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

1 persons individual change is not enough to matter. For individual carbon footprint changes to matter you need 100% participation across the planet to fix a small part of the problem.

To make systemic change you need the majority of voters. So around 25% participation to fix 100% of the problem.

I provided my source showing BP hired a marketing firm to get the public to focus on their individual carbon footprint.

So to answer your question of who the shill is: I’d say the person repeating the fossil fuel talking points.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I’d say the person repeating the fossil fuel talking points.

I'd say it's the one discouraging people from changing their habits, thereby continuing to give money to fossil fuel companies and big ag.

Yes, also vote. But discouraging people from changing is so obviously in favor of the groups you purport to be against.

I provided my source showing BP hired a marketing firm to get the public to focus on their individual carbon footprint.

I find that comments like these seem to give the person making it license to continue doing things counter to their stated goals of reducing the affects of climate change. I'm sure it makes you feel better about doing it but I'm here to say, you can certainly make a change on your own, every single day and do not have to wait to act twice a year (in the US example) to vote to improve things.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I’m not discouraging anyone from changing their habits.

I am pointing out why the fossil fuel industry is paying marketing firms to come into threads like this and say the same things you are saying:

Because focusing on individual carbon footprint requires 100% of the world to just do the right thing in order to fix a small part of the problem.

While focusing on systemic change requires the voting majority, which is closer to 25% of the population. To fix 100% of the problem.