Id like lemmings take on how they would actually reduce emissions on a level that actually makes a difference (assuming we can still stop it, which is likely false by now, but let's ignore that)

I dont think its as simple as "tax billionaires out of existence and ban jets, airplanes, and cars" because thats not realistic.

Bonus points if you can think of any solutions that dont disrupt the 99%'s way of life.

I know yall will have fun with this!

top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 37 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Stop burning fossil fuels. There is no way that doesn't include that.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    How we gonna melt steel, copper, titanium, tungsten, etc?

    Sadly, fossil fuels aren't going away anytime soon. ☹️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 62 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    solutions that dont disrupt the 99%'s way of life

    This is not possible. Barring some miracle technologies being developed, we would have to radically change our standards of living and give up our modern convenient lives to make meaningful changes.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Renewable electricity seems like it gets us most of the way there.

    The remaining problems I can think of are concrete and fuel for air travel. We could probably go without concrete, although it would suck, and otherwise we just have to recapture the CO2 from the atmosphere. Direct capture and storage has proven trucky because the kilns are large, hot, and rotating, making them difficult to seal. E-fuel or biofuel would have to be the solution for air travel. Maybe airships are close enough to qualify as non-disruptive, I guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Ban planned obsolescence and make a rigorous standard that any new device is designed repairable, reliable and long lasting enough to last at least 10 years if treated right, 20+ years for vehicles and machinery..

    This whole 'you gotta get a new thing every year' era causes sooo much unnecessary waste and pollution ☹️

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    This would have almost 0 impact on climate change. It wouldn't stop new stuff being produced and bought, people still want shinier things than they had yesterday, long lasting or not. It'd be a positive change, but not for climate change.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Make less shit, factories would slow down, less resources used, less pollution emitted, less energy used, and as a result, there would be at least some positive impact on climate change.

    Granted it might be minimal, even negligible, but it would make some difference.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Many many would not get the new shiny. In my lifetime my vehicles have had few appreciable improvements. Mostly around safety like air bags and view cameras. I could care less about the radio and if I did its easy enough to upgrade that part.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    The idea of personal action vs. corporate/government action is a false choice. The government can force the corpos to stop burning the planet, but that will mean significant lifestyle changes for everybody.

    It also means getting our shit together about immigration/ migration/ refugees. And not just in the US, but globally. A humanitarian catastrophe is assured otherwise.

    I'm not optimistic.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    Genuinely there needs to be a fee that companies must pay for the pollution they create, with it written into law that they can't palm the cost off on their customers.

    We need to move shipping away from the 'barely more refined than crude oil' fuels they use

    We need to ensure protection of the oceans by making it so that outflowing waste from industry never reaches the watercourse in the first place.

    Single use plastics need to be removed from the supply chain (alternatively changed at the production level so they're made from plant cellulose or a material that doesn't break down into PFOAS or microplastics)

    We also need to block petrochemical companies from lobbying or interfering with politics, and prevent them from funding smear campaigns against renewable energy sources

  • source
  • [+] 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    and as we’ve seen people will throw shitfits over things as small as plastic straws.

    That's still depressing as hell, on both sides. One because they're freaking out over slightly different straws, the other because it's such a token gesture to plastics pollution that solves nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Agree with you here, life needs to change. For OP I'd say - define change.

    I've gone almost completely carbon neutral (I mean, outside of groceries and things I literally need to survive), but for my house and my daily routine, I'm happy. I'd say my life has been changed - but not much. Now if you asked my conservative family if my life changed they'd be clutching their pearls and fainting.

    I have:

    • Went from a 2-car household to a 1-car household, replacing the aging vehicle with an EV with an in-home charger
    • My spouse can only drive to work (US based), but I now take the bus
    • I currently use Lime and am getting an e-bike soon for local travel
    • I've switched our HVAC system from gas furnace to a heat pump. I still have gas if it gets insanely cold, but last year it only turned on twice, so my usage is down about 95% from where it was before
    • My water heater is still gas, but within the next year I'll be converting it
    • My electricity is 100% renewable in my area, but even if it wasn't all of this would still be more efficient, and even then solar and batteries are still on the table.

    For me these have been relatively easy changes, minor impacts to my life. If I even mention that we went down to be a one car house my conservative family freaks out - unable to even imagine it. So for them yeah life would be pretty different - but as a whole it'd be better for us.

    It's easy to blame the corporations, but we buy their products. Yes the oil and gas are the worst. You know what would change those companies though? If we all stopped buying so much oil and gas. "But what about airlines or other industries". Again, we're the ones who buy them. We don't have much rail where we are but I vote with my wallet and take rail whenever I can. I avoid flying unless it's the only option. If everyone tried to do even some of these things we'd be having a noticeable impact. (Force the corps too, they don't get off scot-free, but damnit neither do we. We can do both)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Tax billionaires out of existence, ban fossil fuels, invest in carbon capture, ban corporate greed, switch all solutions to the slightly more expensive, green alternative

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Engineer a virus to send back in time to slow down CO2 emissions

    wait a minute...

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 11 points 1 year ago (11 children)
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Passed it a while ago. That doesn't mean we can't slow down.

    Humanity will evolve to deal with the changes, maybe. Maybe not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Honestly, if capitalism stopped tomorrow, and we all did community planting. Were restricted on car usage, and did carbon capture techniques that were proven to work.... All en mass, globally, I suspect we could change things.

    The problem is Capitalism and freemarket "progress". The endless carbon fuelled march to no where (in the name of money). A lot could be done without that humming away like nothing is wrong, but politicians want to protect Free Market Capitalism and aren't laying down reasonable restrictions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    There are no carbon capture and storage technologies proven to work at a meaningful scale.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Geoengineering is probably the only way to counteract things now.

    But that involves fucking around with the bottom of our food chain in the oceans so there's obviously a good deal of reluctance to start down that path.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    It's not an on/off switch. Everything we can do will lessen the impact even if it can't be stopped.

    But as others mention, real impact comes from governments and international cooperation, not individual actions. Hence why voting is so important.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    This is extremely important: we are not at the point of no return.

    Climate change can be stopped, even now. It will take lots of work, but it's possible.

    ClimateAdam, who has a PhD in climate science from Oxford, made a video about this. It's 5 years old, but he's still making videos with similar points today. It's my understanding this is still the predominant view amongst climate scientists. The main reason I think this is that there aren't many calling for geoengineering, which if we were at the point of no return would be something we'd have to explore.

    The reason this is so important is because as climate change denial becomes more and more infeasible, it will get replaced primarily with climate change defeatism. The sooner we start pushing back on this, the better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    "Point of no return" is a simplistic concept. It depends on the your threshold for how bad it gets. Most climate scientists would agree that we're just at or about to pass the 1.5°C target. But they would also agree that ever extra fraction of a degree matters. It's not a question of "when are we fucked?" Its a question of "how quickly can we act to minimise severity of change?"

    Source: am climate scientist, have been to a major climate conference in the last few months, and talk to other climate scientists regularly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I am not a climate scientist and have not been to conferences but im a reasonably intelligent human who has five decades of experience on this planet and I can see we are already fucked in that things have changed in how the planet works. I see the storms (not just the news making ones but how unoften light rain has become around me and how often general storms have become), I see the flooding, I see the change in the seasons, etc. To me its now when are we fucked because again we already see that we are. To me its how roughly we want the fucking to be ultimately and can we bring it back down to a more tender and loving level.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    No reasonable scientist is going to call for geoengineering unless they could be sure they are not making it worse. We are certainly in a point of no return in that we will not get back to 0 but until we are actually falling apart we won't know for sure if we can't survive at +3 or +5.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    In my opinion it is not possible to fight climate change while maintaining the same standards of life that we have now. Even if we are going to try, this will probably not be followed by many states with big population, so probably its not gonna work. From what I see, everyone is fighting climate change today by posting stuff on their social medias but when it comes to change habits, its another story.

    Anyway, my idea is that we don't have to ban things like cars and airplanes but we can use them more efficiently. We can repair more and buy less. Do we really need to change a car after 100.000 km? In my country, If you live in a big city you can use public transport most of the time, so why we don't start to connect well also the small places?

    Do we really need to buy fruits and vegetables that comes from other continents and needs to be chemically treated, transported, stocked and consequently generates pollution?

    In the consumer technology Sector people usually changes their computers and phones every 3-5 years even if the hardware is still working well. The software is usually becoming more heavier over the years without adding real features (See Meta's apps). We must accept that this is not compatible with fighting climate change because we are producing too much waste that is avoidable together with massive exploitation of resources. The majority of users are not educated to understand how our technology works at its most basic level, I think that we may start from here.

    Maybe we cannot erase billionaires but we can stop adulating or hating them and giving them unnecessary notoriety.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    It's not everything obviously, but mandate that all people who can do their job from home must do their job from home. This will take a bite out of cars and improve general human morale.

    Eliminate carbon trading programs and just set hard limits. Went over your allocation of carbon? Guess you're done for the quarter.

    Eliminate LLCs. Bring on the accountability.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    Eat the rich. I remember when the Twitter account that posted where Musk's private jet is all the time and holy shit, he travelled a lot.

    Like, multiple times a week where this machine that fucks up the environment is used to transport a single person.

    Or the disgusting mega yacht that Zuckerberg uses.

    During my whole life I'm not gonna destroy the environment like every single one of leeches on society does in a month.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Proviso of this is that, globally, politicians grow a spine, along with a sense of morality, and long term planning. It would also require them to deal with the money hoarding issues with the hyper rich.

    • The first step is a massive push for renewables. They should be representing 200-500% of grid demand regularly. If nuclear can get up to speed and be part of this, great, but we can't wait on it.

    • That excess power should be soaked up by large scale, portable, energy storage. Green hydrogen is the current best option, but synthetic fossil fuels could also take up the slack. Depending on the area, desalination could also be combined into this.

    • We seriously decarbonise the transport networks. For vans and smaller, electric vehicles win. BYD have demonstrated that low cost electric cars are viable. For larger vehicles, where electric becomes inefficient, hydrogen is viable. This is where a lot of the excess hydrogen will be going.

    • Carbon credits with teeth. Rather than relying on a planned economy mindset, we can make capitalism work for us. We need a global fixed carbon emission limit. This limit should trend towards net zero on a preset timetable. Credits are bid on, akin to stock market trades. Companies must have credits by the end of the year/period. The fine for not having credits should be a multiple of the closing credits price (10x?). The fine for falsification should be multiples of that, erring towards corporate execution levels.

    This will force easy savings out of the market quickly. It will then force compulsory emitters to factor in Carbon costs.

    • Combined with the carbon credits will be negative credits. If a group takes a ton of CO² out of the air, long term, they gain a new credit. They can sell this to emitters. This will provide the CO² emissions industry requires, while meeting net zero.

    An example of this might be large scale bio capture on the open ocean. Grow seaweed etc on pontoons, and turn it into a solid. This can then be locked up (old coal mines?) taking carbon out permanently.

    • Geo engineering. There are multiple methods of reducing incident sunlight on the earth. Everything from powders in the upper atmosphere, to mylar solar shades at the Lagrange point. They will be short term fixes, but will buy us time.

    None of these require massive reductions in quality of life. They do require changes in how we do things. It's also worth noting that I've not covered the numerous problems to be solved e.g. power grid upgrades to account for renewables. None of these should be insurmountable however, just engineering, or political/policing challenges.

    An no, I've no fucking idea how to get politicians to grow a spine and do what's required for our long term comfort/survival. Fixing the planet? That's just a (really big) engineering problem. Fixing human nature? ...Fuck knows.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Major corporations caused this, only major corporations can solve it. Laws would have to be passed requiring them to offset the damage from everything they do. Coops would need to be set up wherever possible for one industry to reuse waste from another. Subsidies would need to be ethically set up to encourage industry involved with cleaning the environment. Cooperation between nations to combat global issues would be needed. Actual consequences for industries it nations that violate. Education!! And most importantly convince half the world's population to give a shit or even believe the problem exists. I've probably missed some.

    The alternative would be magic.

    Yeah, between the two, I think magic is probably more realistic. Let's go with that.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I'm not a doomer, in large part because I think that economic forces will reduce greenhouse emissions significantly on their own, and despite hitting recent setbacks in policymaking that would push those reductions to happen more more quickly or with deeper cuts, that decarbonization back down to 1990 levels is still going to happen in our lifetimes.

    Here's how I think we'll get there:

    • Phasing out fossil fuel electricity generation. Solar power is just ridiculously cheap compared to any other method of generation. As we deploy grid scale storage, demand-shifting technology and pricing structures, develop redundancy with wind and advanced geothermal (and possibly fusion in the coming decades), we're going to make fossil fuel electricity generation uncompetitive on price. Maybe ratepayers and governments don't want to subsidize carbon-free energy, but why would they want to subsidize carbon emitting energy when those are no longer competitive?
    • Electrification of transportation (electric vehicles, including big stuff like trains and buses and small stuff like bikes and scooters).
    • Electrification of heat, both for indoor climate control and furnaces/boilers for water and industrial applications. Heat pumps are already cost effective for new construction in most climates, and even retrofits are approaching cost competitiveness with fossil fuel powered heaters.
    • Carbon capture as a feedstock into chemical production, including alternative fuels like sustainable aviation fuel. Once electricity is cheap enough, even only at certain times of day, energy-intensive chemical production can hit flexible output targets to absorb surplus energy supply from overproduction of solar, to store that energy for later or otherwise remove carbon from the atmosphere.

    To borrow from a Taoist concept, we shouldn't expend effort fighting the current of a river when the current itself can be utilized to accomplish our goals. In this case, the capitalist incentive structure of wanting to do stuff that makes money is now being turned towards decarbonization for cost savings or outright profit.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I miss being this optimistic. No hate, I just don’t have that hope in me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    US carbon emissions peaked in 2007 and have been coming down since. US capita carbon emissions peaked in the 1970s and have been coming down since.

    The concern has always been with the much, much larger developing world, if they would one day become rich enough to emit carbon like North America. And as it turns out, China's push for low cost solar and low cost EVs have revolutionized the energy world for development economics. Now if you're a poor agrarian country looking to industrialize, the cheapest energy available just happens to be clean.

    It's like how the developing world mostly skipped landline infrastructure in the 2000's because cell phones became easier and cheaper to build. We're seeing the same thing play out with fossil fuel electricity generation, where most new capacity coming online, even in the third world, is solar.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yes. OP can't solve it. Lemmy can't solve it. But even not solving it will be okay unless you're a coral reef, because we got lucky and technology is bailing out our asses. The few token political initiatives will help a bit.

    If we end ourselves it will be in a different way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    We grow ~all our own food, and pollinate with our own bees and artificial methods. Somewhere will stay suitable for that even if we're going all the way back to the dinosaur times hothouse Earth. That right there is enough for mere survival and basic industry.

    Maybe it could feed into the reasons for a nuclear war, or something, ooor maybe it's bound to happen without. Or maybe humanity will go on indefinitely.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Geoengineering: Whether through launching solar shades into space to block sunlight and cool the planet down, pump aerosols into the atmosphere, cloud seeding, or anything else. I think this is where our research should be going. I think it's too late to avoid the worst-case-scenarios of climate change from merely cutting emissions, so more drastic measures to alleviate or even reverse the effects may be necessary. Plus it'll help us with any future colonizing and terraforming of worlds outside of Earth.

    Public transport infrastructure to reduce our reliance on cars & planes: While I don't think hyperloops or a transatlantic tunnel are feasible, building tens of thousands of kilometres worth of overground and underground railway routes to interconnect towns and cities with high speed maglev trains is. China have the right idea.

    Right to work from home: Remote working reduces our dependency on cars and frees up real estate to address the various housing crises we have.

    Right to repair and outlawing planned obsolescence: Should we have to buy a new smartphone every 3 or so years because Apple or Samsung want to maximize profits? Do we care at all about the amount of electronic waste we're producing?

    Accelerate our efforts to reverse desertification and plant trillions more trees: If we can turn parts of the Sahel, Gobi Desert and the Australian outback green, that could have a very beneficial effect on the environment.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Oh hell no. Lets not fuck with nature even more. We must not play god! Geoengineering might cause more problems than its use!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    It's the only viable option given how much we've fucked the planet up.

    Stopping (not reducing) emissions won't stop already ongoing feedback loops, it'll just prevent going full Venus.

    If human civilization simply ceased to exist it'd still take millions of years for temperatures to go back to pre-human levels.

    Sequestering enough carbon or increasing albedo don't seem like feasible options.

    We need to put a shade between Earth and the Sun, it's the only option that seems possible before we collapse, and it would achieve immediate results (of course it'd also give companies an excuse to keep pumping carbon into the atmosphere, since the problem would be “solved”, so we'd be back on track for Venus style runaway greenhouse effect in one or two decades).

    We're 100% fucked.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    attack the capitalist system.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    But it's time to disrupt 99% of life.

    Survey humanity, produce an agreed on level of technology and lifestyle.

    We probably need to limit ourselves to housing, food, internet, and safety/defense for everyone and not much else - then slow all industries based on HOW people want to live.

    So getting rid of things like, plastic toys, gizmos, extravagances. Phones wouldn't be updated as often. People would only be able to update their tech if they could meaningfully show it was necessary.

    Lots of technology companies would be folded. Lots of industries would be nationalised and folded. International tourism would be greatly restricted. All the stuff we don't need basically.

    People would be mostly employed in the basics: Housing, food, internet. Too far beyond that and you'd have to rely on local people/groups/makers/repair companies.

    So massive degrowth, nationalization, and restrictions/regulations to the market.

    Most of all, corporations would no longer count as people. In fact society should have to rely on person to person contracting. I don't really think corporations should exist becuase they become Zombies/Golems that do a lot of destructive things.

    Basically degrowth, and restructuring society around degrowth.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • This is the one post I've seen here that actually tackles the main problems. Climate change can't be stopped without degrowth, which means putting a stop to capitalism.

    I'd like to add: while there would be a lot we'd have to give up, life under a degrowth economy would be good. Way better than what we have now. We'd all have more leisure time to focus on stuff that matters. Sure, we'd have fewer gadgets and toys, but we'd be able to spend more time with loved ones and engaging in creative and fulfilling hobbies.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    All other "solutions" in this thread are so funny to me. People thinking more efficient/more sustainable stuff will change anything. Solar panels and whatever still need to be produced, causing emissions. If you continue growing infinitely, you're going to cause infinite emissions with that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Security would go a long way. Not national security but life security. For example I own a bunch of tools and I sorta wish I did not. If I was guaranteed access to something like a tool library that had everything I might need to buy from home depot of such I would not carry any. Heck it could be home depot where when you buy the paint you get the rollers and brushes and equipment to clean it up with your purchase and you return it when your done. Heck could return the leftover paint. Also internet replaces a lot of things. My wife and I are committed to not buying physical things so we using streaming services and buy digital copies of stuff. We get books in pdf now and use games and such to get away from toys and such.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Starting about 2 years ago, we in the US had a plan and investments. Building out renewables and grid storage like gangbusters. Incentives to weatherize and update hvac. EV incentives and a program to build out charging infrastructure. Finally some investment in intercity rail. No new ice cars after 2035, and a mandate for EV trucks. Huge promises of EV delivery trucks from usps, ups, amazon. It was a good start.

    So much for that idea

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Soo by realistic do you mean something you and me could actually do? Then almost nothing. It will stop when it stops, because the other 8 billion people have a say. I do political activism on the off chance it will indirectly affect something somehow, but I don't think it has, to date.

    If you just mean non-disruptive per the 99% comment, a carbon tax is often thought to be the way to go. It makes greener things cheaper and so more favoured by buyers in a really balanced, fair way.

    We had a small one in Canada, and a massive political movement for cheap gas started and crushed it. :(

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Compost the rich

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    You are asking two how to questions "combat climate change" and "reduce emissions"

    To realistically combat climate change:

    • Admit that we need to try geoengineering (we are already doing this with all the CO2 and CH4 going into the atmosphere)
    • Weather it is SO2 injection or cloud seeding to artificially increase the albido; we need to reduce incident solar radiation to give us a few more decades to actually reduce emissions

    To reduce emissions:

    • Tackle the biggest emissions first.
    • Electrification of the passenger fleet; that means batteries. Keep fuel cells for heavy transport (maybe)
    • Encourage electric biking. And other micro-mobility. Along with better public transport.
    • Normalise a historical style diet, meat is a treat only once or twice a week.
    • Reduce concrete construction; keep it for the important things like the foundations.
    • Reduce the practice of packaging everything in plastic; again keep it for the important things only like electrical insulation.
    • Massive ramp up of solar and wind around the world.
    • Where we use fossil fuels, ask is this important enough to use FF here?

    Carbon taxes:

    • Tax CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) at a reasonable rate to encourage all of the reduction measures.
    • At less than $65NZD/T the cost is too low to encourage significant movement on the issues.
    • Have a ratcheting scheme in the CO2 market, i.e. add $5-8/yr/T for CO2e; in 10 years the price will be between $110-140/T. At the 10yr mark, make the ratchet $10-15/yr/T.
    • Add a carbon tariff; basically make it more expensive to buy from countries that are not pulling their weight.
    • Be careful not to double tax, this is important for buy in from the public. i.e. the carbon tax on fuel should be exempt from sales tax, taxing a tax is a great way to alienate people.
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    increase the albido

    My brain saw this as 'libido' for a second. I was like, you want us to fuck our way to carbon neutrality?

    I was about to suggest cross-posting to imgur when I realized I merely misread the word :\

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    companies and countries have largely abandoned it already, the most polluting ones dint do anything to reduce it at all. consumers are the smaller emitters of it.

    these companies have actively funded groups to dissuade "carbon usage" so they dont have to reduce thier own emissions.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Yeet billionaires into space is a decent start.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm vegan, have no intention of ever buying a car and plan on never having children. That's probably as much individual action as anyone can ask for. Anything after that is up to corporations and governments, so we should make sure they are incentivized to do the right thing 👍

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    I'm going off the top of my head here:

    Okay so you know the concept of evaporative cooling for the new AI data centres? It's hugely wasteful, and definitely not the only way to accomplish the goal, but it's cheaper. I feel like if we actually figured out all the bullshit of that calibre and just outlawed it, we'd make a significant start towards improvement and only marginally impact the bank statements of a few ultra rich billionaires.

    Stop allowing people to dump exhaust and waste untreated into the air and otherwise in the environment, full stop. Full illegal, if you violate it the entire company is dissolved. That'll suck for shipping, manufacturing, fuck it. We need to actually stop this to achieve some kind of meaningful change. Go back to sails and windmills if we need to, we achieved global industry and shipping before the internal combustion engine existed, we can do it again.

    Phase out fossil fuels. It'll suck a bit, fuck it. Increase reliance on public transport and population density. Make it so you don't need individual transport to accomplish basic necessities for the vast majority of people.

    Ramp up public collaborative research into batteries, power storage, carbon capture, climate science. At this point we're playing catch up, we need everything we can to try to rectify this shit storm like yesterday.

  • source
  • I think the first step is to get a good spotter and then exhale on the pull.

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Vote.

    Edit: to be clear, vote in every election you have access to. Local voting and primaries are just important. Voting even if you don’t like any of the options is still important.

    If you don’t vote then you’re part of the problem.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Depends on where you live.

    In some places, voting is extremely important and can affect things majorly.

    In some places, voting is completely useless because the voter has legitimately no power in a rigged system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If a rigged vote gets 100 votes to person A and 0 votes for person B then you will think person B’s ideas aren’t valid.

    If a rigged vote gets 100 for person A and 35 for person B, well person B’s ideas shouldn’t be ignored. It also shows the 90 people that didn’t vote that maybe they should vote next time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    If they won't shut down their CO²-spewing factories and plants, then we will have to.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    There's now no way to stop or reverse the inevitable collapse of the comfortable way of life we have right now. This isn't a fight for survival or for the planet, it's to perpetuate the system we enjoy at the moment.

    The only way remaining to minimise the damage to our way of life is with some huge geo-engineering projects. Like scattering reflective particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect some sunlight away or releasing some novel chemical into the oceans to fix carbon dioxide and lock it away.

    The risks of experimenting like this has always outweighed the benefits (like the guys who thought they could kill a hurricane and instead magnified it and sent it back inland resulting in the deaths of multiple people). But now it's too late to worry about things like that because the inevitable impacts of climate change including wild fires, habitat destruction, biodiversity collapse, extreme weather events are all here now while most of the world is still arguing about whether it even exists or not.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Adopt. Don't make new people. Take in people who have been abandoned. My father had the same idea in the 1970s — I suppose I should be fortunate my mother overruled him on that one. But he had the idea almost 50 years ago, for similar reasons.

    And apply a similar philosophy to the rest of your life. We all know the word recycle. And I have been a proponent of recycling for over 30 years. I've heard it doesn't help. I've heard some municipalities take it all to the same place. I don't care. I still do it. But I also remember when there were three words. The original slogan went "Reduce. Reuse. Recycle." Many people forgot the first two. You can reuse and repurpose a lot of things. But you should also reduce consumption as well. Eat less processed food. Stick to protein — plant and animal (unless you're a vegetarian/vegan obviously). Stick to the outside of the grocery store (produce, dairy, deli, meat). Bakery is nice for an occasional treat, but find out what they make in-house and not ship in frozen.

    I don't think I'm doing enough on my own. I also don't have illusions I'll convince many others. I'm not really trying to. I'm not trying to save the world, just survive it.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Why do you say stick to protein? I understand for health reasons but emissions wise starches like wheat and maize are some of the most efficient per calorie, especially when compared to animal protein..

    I guess you could argue there less filling so you'll eat more but you'd need to eat a ton of potato chips to get to the same amount of emmisions as a steak.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Oh — I meant strictly for health reasons. Guess I got a bit off-topic there.

    But yeah, starch breaks down to sugar and we don't need more of that. I do love my corn (maize) tortillas for wrapping up meat and vegetables though!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Biggest problem is that only about 20% of the population of our planet is trying to make a difference and the rest are too poor to care and the 1% are busy building bunkers with the money they stole from the once middle class that are now too poor to do anything.

    My answer isn't to tax the rich, it's to get rid of them and invest all that money into green tech, funding reforestation, improving EVs, that's just of the top of my head.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    That 80% may care, especially since climate change will hit them the hardest, but there's a lot less they can do to lower emmisions. Ask them to:

    • stop flying

    • stop driving

    • stop buying cheap plastic clothes, toys etc.

    • eat less meat

    • don't use as much AC

    They'll just reply OK, already doing all that...

    The richest 10% globally (~$50,000) account for half of carbon emmisions while the poorest half only account for 10%. The problem isn't that the top 20% are the only ones who care, the problem is there lifestyle is disproportionately causing this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    This response is focused on the US since that's the place I already have a very good idea of the current laws and challenges affecting climate action. I'd start by passing the following legislation immediately:

    • Mandate remote work options for all positions that can be performed remotely. We saw during the pandemic how much commuting to the office negatively impacts the environment as well as people's lives.
    • Carbon tax with a gradual but short (say 4 year) implementation period where it rachets up to the full tax value for carbon emissions directly created by the industry. The carbon tax is intended to make polluting and wasteful choices far more expensive than cleaner alternatives as well as raise tax dollars for significant infrastructure redevelopment
    • Create new taxes and tax breaks plus subsidies for rental properties with poor insulation to encourage updating all rental properties to have modern insulation (and similar tax breaks and subsidies for homeowners to upgrade their insulation)
    • Federally allow the construction of ADUs in all residential zone types (likely also creating a more relaxed permitting process and building code for ADUs to reduce cost and encourage their construction)
    • Federally allow 2 family housing in all single family zoning (meaning a single family zoned lot can now have the main dwelling converted into a duplex plus an ADU constructed, tripling the permitted density)
    • Federal tax break and subsidy for the purchase, maintenance and use of bicycles including ebikes and bike trailers (many places are bikable but people just don't choose to bike. For example, every small town is mostly bikable within town save for any highways that cut through them, and residential streets are very safe places to bike even if they don't contain dedicated bike infrastructure)
    • Gradually but significantly increase annual vehicle registration fees, racheting them from the current ~$120 per year to ultimately cost several thousand dollars per year, with some discounts available to those who do not live in an incorporated community, NEVs and classic cars, thereby greatly discouraging vehicle ownership and car commuting. Also instituting significantly higher registration fees for heavier vehicles

    In the longer term I'd also take the following steps:

    • Use carbon taxes to fund a massive transit shift away from private cars to build more railroads and better bike infrastructure
    • Nationalize the north American freight rail network and turn all railroads into rail operators, and either an existing federal agency or a new agency takes over maintainance, dispatching and expansion of the rail network, significantly lowering the bar for new railroad services and companies to be created
    • Massively expand Amtrak services with many new routes and expanded service on existing routes

    And for an even longer term cultural shift to encourage slower growth I'd pass the following legislation:

    • Impliment UBI as an eventual replacement for all social safetynet programs. Probably a value of around $1k/month per adult and $3k/month per retiree/disabled adult would make it enough that creative individuals could live entirely off of the UBI but low enough to still encourage working. Most importantly this UBI would be decoupled from the stock market so stock market crashes would not affect people's ability to retire. This fits into climate legislation as it removes one of the primary incentives for infinite economic growth (saving for retirement)
    • Strong right to repair legislation combined with minimum warranty terms of 5-10 years (plus minimum expectations for warranties such as limiting how long a repair/replacement may take to receive) for products to ensure higher quality construction
    • Greatly expand the EPA's powers so that a nimble agency can forcibly stop companies from finding new ways to legally pollute our world, as well as providing a second mandate to the EPA to help consumers live more sustainably (this could come in the form of EPA-funded repair workshops and tool libraries for example, probably also EPA-funded vehicle rentals including ebike and ebike trailer rentals so that people can more easily go car-free)

    And that's what I have off the top of my head. Start with the changes that will make a big impact without requiring individual lifestyle change, and in the longer term financially encourage a more sustainable lifestyle. Removing the financial forces that encourage wasteful resource consumption can be all of the incentive needed for people to live much more sustainably and can be enough to put the world's climate goals within reach

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm doing my part by not having children.

    If there's no humans there cannot be pollution.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    No plastics but natural materials, wood, leather stuff like that Renewable energies, reduce consumption, public transport everywhere instead of cars. Higher density of living together.

    PUNISH THE COMPANYS! NO PRIVAT JETS OR IN LAND FLYING!

    Go vegan/vegitarian. Not just for the enviorment but personal health! And when meat then not mass produced meat. Butcherm if you cant afford it then maybe dont. Its not neccissary

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    First, people need to accept that we exist within a culture of overconsumption that directly contributes to climate change. Sacrifices to common conveniences will need to be made before we can make any meaningful change.

    I'm not saying this is all on the individual. Corporations contribute tremendous waste. But they do so in service to society's demand for convenience and instant gratification. We all need to learn to live with less.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Call a halt to this AI bullshit for a start. I've just received a (UK) government questionnaire about my personal energy usage and how I might reduce it. Meanwhile, I learn said government has mooted giving everyone in the country ChatGPT Plus for free!

    There are innumerable ways businesses and governments can reduce their energy footprint etc and make a difference.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Buy less crap. That’s it. It sounds like a sacrifice, but stuff doesn’t make you happy (provided your basic needs are met). If you are working longer hours to pay for your cars and tvs and fast fashion, your life might improve.

    Playing with a cellphone is kinda fun. Know what’s really fun? Friends.

    If you’re under 60, buying less crap is going to disrupt your life less than climate change will, so i think i am entitled to the aforementioned bonus points.

  • source
  • I don't think there's any hope of addressing climate change as long as Europe and the USA adhere to a capitalist economic system.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I don't think I can. I try and make the least impact I can for my own moral reasons. Essentially I want to know I did as much as I could when I leave this existence. I accept that there are forces beyond me that I can only influence indirectly and that despite my efforts can and have gone in a massively opposite direction of reducing climate change.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    Locally with your community. None of these governments are prepared to bite the corporate tit that feeds them.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    My proposal... this is a "long con", so this seem more like a political proposal rather than something that can quickly fix up our society to be less polluting:

    1. Start/contribute to a political party that is catered towards young voters, with somewhere between center-left to full left-wing orientation. Note that sadly this party cannot be "far-left" so no eating billionaires or drastic corporate taxes... yet. Climate change will be a core part of the agenda, but at this point the party has to only focus on low-hanging fruit options (improve recycling & waste management, fines on recycling, taxes on cars, company cars, and high-consumption households, etc). Very important that intermediate steps such as nuclear is accepted (in contrast to some Green Parties), we can't afford to ruin the economy at this point
    2. Try to pre-emptively rule out serious cases of corruption and/or nepotism, and try to base party focuses and decisions on politically unbiased scientific outputs; might need to hire a good scientific panel
    3. Use whatever means possible to try and gain popularity without changing the party's principles. Ads... yes. Social media... yes. Paid influencers... have to swallow a hard pill here but also yes
    4. Try to win enough seats to form a majority coalition government with left-leaning and/or green parties. This is where point 1's not being far-left yet comes into place as the party will need to be at least somewhat popular with most voters and most other politicians
    5. Work with the coalition to reduce tax loopholes, try to classify more forms of rich-people "income" into regular taxable income, and shift the main beneficiaries of party politics to focus on the working class. So no more tax loopholes for the rich as much as we can try... and the "no corruption" part from point 2 becomes very important here as otherwise the plan can go to waste
    6. The government should have a healthy tax base at this point. Now start giving tax incentives to perform more serious individualistic environmentally-friendly options (for example, subsidized high-speed rail instead of plane, install solar panels, biking instead of driving), and heavily tax or penalize situations that are polluting with no particular upsides (one-time use plastic, private jets, ,,,)
    7. Now THINK BIGGER. Invest tax money to public transit and green energy infrastructure; the population might be accepting of more radical interventions such as banning private jets or prison time for some execs now so we can start doing that

    ... Frankly, if anyone actually carries out this plan until like step 5 or 6, I think the exact details regarding combat climate change would be trivial, since the government would have very sufficient resources/good will/power to do so at that point

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Sorry, not sorry, but the

    I dont think its as simple as "tax billionaires out of existence and ban jets, airplanes, and cars" because thats not realistic.

    is not something we can skip as ducking billionaires and private jers are a large part of the reason we're here in the first place.

    Ban private jets, all of them. Maybe exceptions for medical flights only. There is no reason for their existence, there is no human right that says "well humans must be able to own their own airplane!"

    Ban super yachts, there is no reason why they should exist beyond showing off what an abusive hoarding asshole the owner is.

    Make cities for humans, not for cars. That doesn't mean ban cars outright but do make cities like in the Netherlands and more. Cars should be kept out of cities asuch as possible. Pedestrians and bicycles first (and in many places, only) and replace the vast majority of cars with electrified public transport. Make neighborhoods mixed buildings with homes, stores and bars and restaurants. All industrial stuff in industrial parks.

    This will change the urban design of cities. You'll get many more smaller stores all around, people don't need a car to go yo Walmart, they walk to their neighborhood store. This will make all countries as nice as "oh my god the Netherlands is so nice, it's so nice with the small streets and the bicycle allowing you to go everywhere". It'll also lower CO2 by a shit load. In the Netherlands, a huge amount of the population doesn't have a car because they don't want a car. It's expensive and they no longer actually NEED one. Cars that are left should all be electrified.

    Tax the rich, and not just a little bit. The 1% and 0.1% are extreme polluters and take and waste beyond anything that can be construed as normal. There is no inherent human right to be a billionaire. Tax the rich and prohibit anyone from having a networth over 10 million dollars (example figure, but something around that) by taxation. Any income after you reach that is 100 % taxed. Of course there will be tax brackets, starting at zero for the poorest, going up and up to that 100%.

    Limit company sizes to 1 billion dollars networth and or 1000 employees. After that billion, revenue taxes go to 100% equally. No company should be too big. If the company is worth that, btw, you'd need loads of shareholders as each individual can only have a networth of 10 million, remember?

    Teach our children that being super rich is something shameful. You've been abusive, you've been hoarding, it's abusive and you should be ashamed, and (as said above) prohibited

    Require all product producers that all their products are recyclable, repairable, built with sustainable materials from sustainable sources. If it's not sustainable, don't sell it.

    Same for packaging, bit also require all packaging to have only one packaging, not twenty, and all packaging material must be paper

    Require stores to also sell used versions of their products. This requires that they also buy used products from their customers. This of course doesnt apply to food and such :)

    Prohibit stores from dumping unsold items. If something doesn't sell, they can give it to the government for distribution

    Ban plastics where possible. No plastic in packaging, for example. No plastic bottles, go back to glass. Standardize certain bottle sizes and colors for easier reuse.

    Teach kids hat he basics of Capitalism is okay, but that it can become an evil beast if not controlled well. Consumerism is not okay, you don't need half the crap people have in their homes these days

    With that said, prohibited ALL advertising. If I'd have to see another single lie from a company about how their product really is the best, it'd be too much

    Stop inheritance. You should be able to inherit some memorabilia from your loved ones, not that castle they owned

    Make all enormous homes with 50 rooms into nice spa hotels. Nobody has the right to have a home that is crazily oversized.

    Tax meat heavily. It's still okay (for now) as it's such a staple of everyone's diets, but seriously, you don't need a two pound steak. Limit the amount of meat allowed in single servings. Push for laboratory meat.

    Require farms to have all livestock to be able to roam free, have good food, etc.

    Those are a few rules to staet with a generally healthier and better world for everyone. I'm sure some rules are incomplete, need more detail, need exceptions or slight modifications, but the basics are there.

    Nothing not what we have today HAS to be the way it is, it is the way it is because we all allow it. Changing economic systems is usually disastrous, so let's keep capitalism, it's the best system to make capital. But with these basic limits, nobody gets too rich. The government gets loads of money that it can use for social systems like free healthcare, free education, free food and housing, universal basic income, etc.

    Sounds pretty neat in my head, I'll start refining and adding to this list.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›