777
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ewe@lemmy.world 192 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Every time I see these I see these climate change related issues (which is now multiple times a day), I get the same sinking feeling in my stomach like I'm behind on work and don't have enough time to do it and I'll soon be in trouble for letting things get too far behind. That feeling keeps me up, causes me stress, and is generally not a comfortable way to live. This just fucking sucks.

[-] gosling@lemmy.world 68 points 1 year ago

Don't be too harsh on yourself, big corporations are the main cause of climate change. Unless we all collectively decide to give these companies a wake up call, I'm afraid there's very little you can do alone

[-] dangblingus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Big corporations....that we keep rewarding with our money, incentivizing them to not change what they're doing. Human consumption is the largest driver of climate change.

[-] IrrationalAndroid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Is there anything reasonable that we (those who have interest in living "like before" and won't die of age within 30 years) can achieve? I feel like many things are very out of reach, and the population is just too heterogeneous to agree on something. Older folks where I live just do not give a fuck, and elected someone whose major interest is in removing rights from people they actively hate. At least one big city where I live has been without water nor electricity for several hours (days?) because the heat has messed out the infrastructure, and I feel like even in my country barely anybody is talking about it... It's just very discouraging, I want to shift my perspective, but it's not easy.

[-] min0nim@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago

Yes, there are things you can and should be doing.

People blaming ‘corporations’ while not doing anything themselves are a huge part of the problem. Out of the 100 largest corporations contributing the most CO2, almost all of them are fuel and energy based.

So, number one - drives less, or don’t drive at all. This might change where or how you live.

Number 2, buy 100% green power or install your own PV.

These 2 things alone can be contributing up to 50% of your own greenhouse emissions. This isn’t ‘corporations’, it’s us buying power and driving around.

After that everyday consumption is huge. So don’t buy shit to just throw it away. Only buy what’s necessary. Spend more on fewer things, and things that will last.

And finally, do these things because you care. If enough people make some changes. It starts to seem normal. Then others do it too. And vote.

The number of smart, tech savvy people here who think some boats and random companies are the source of impending catastrophe are sadly mistaken. The actual information on what’s causing and contributing is well researched and easy to find. You’ll be able to find an online calculator for your country which will give an averaged breakdown of your own emissions. You can use that to keep drilling into what actions will have the biggest impacts.

Everyone needs to make changes to the way we live. Some need to go first for others to follow.

[-] girlfreddy@mastodon.social 3 points 1 year ago

@min0nim @IrrationalAndroid

New Oxfam research finds that just 125 billionaires are each responsible for one million times more greenhouse gas emissions than the average person. from here https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/who-is-responsible-for-climate-change/

When carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, flaring, and cement production are ranked by nation, "the US is by far the largest historical emitter, responsible for over 20% of all emissions, and the EU is close behind". from here https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/11/18/1063443/responsible-climate-change-charts/

load more comments (24 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 66 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I hate to say it, but I keep avoiding articles about climate change for this reason. I can't do it every time, obviously, but it just gives me such stress.

[-] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 48 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Have you tried separating your recycling out? It'll help offset the cruise ships that each put out around 250,000 cars worth of straight up pollution a year, without factoring in other impacts.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago
[-] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 12 points 1 year ago

Well thank fuck for that... I was worried for a moment there.

[-] vaultdweler13@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

And thats just the cruise ships imagine how much cargo ships output, admitedly cargo ships actually serve a purpose. Cruise ships are idols to our decadence and hubris.

I dream of bloody knives and car bombs.

[-] tryptaminev@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago

Praise our cargo ship overlords for bringing clothes that rip after the third wash and electronics that malfunction after half a year to us!

Joke aside, they are integral to the global economy, but we could cut back a lot on wasteful production and consumption, reducing the transportation needed.

[-] vaultdweler13@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Absolutely, food is one thing but cheap shitty tech is another. Frankly speaking ive never encountered a situation where the cheap shitty stuff was any better than the older expensive stuff.

But im also into weird old tech so the fact that ill use a beat up old car radio instead of a 10 buck radio from big lots is not saying much.

[-] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The solution to that, the systemic impersonal solution, is going to be ending the production of single use plastics. While there's little you can do about recycling, you can imagine if you'll be complaining about that.

[-] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago

Also if we removed single use plastics, but didn't dramatically cut back on everything we do that uses them, then we'd create more pollution with alternative methods trying to fill the gap. A global change is unavoidable, whether it is chosen or forced upon everyone by circumstance.

[-] jasondj@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 year ago

This is part of the issue that a lot of people don’t get.

Plastics are, largely, petrochemicals. We have plastics because we have oil.

Use glass because it’s more recyclable? Glass is heavier and more fragile, meaning more cost to ship and more breakage in transit.

[-] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah... we use single use plastics because they're basically an industrial miracle production wise. Dirt cheap, super easy to use, innumerable applications... and all the drawbacks are post-production and someone else's problem. A tough addiction to break.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] penguin@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

I largely tuned out of climate change news a long time ago. I still care about it. I vote for it and have donated relatively large amounts of money to environmental charities. But otherwise nothing I do makes a difference.

[-] Monkeyhog@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 year ago

Really? The feeling I get when I read articles like this is a resigned feeling of "No shit, we've only been hearing warnings of this for the past 30 years. People are fucking stupid"

[-] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

There used to be plausible deniability. "Maybe it won't really be that bad, even though we should be acting in case it is."

Now it's more of a "I wonder where the various lines are and how many we've already crossed, which one will be next, and how soon we'll notice it."

Have you noticed the number of insects is way down this year? Maybe I'm wrong. They do still gather in the lights (which might be another part of the fucking problem...) but there just doesn't seem to be as many as there used to be this year.

[-] jasondj@ttrpg.network 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The irony is that if we did act as if it would be that bad, it wouldn’t be that bad because we would have mitigated the worst of it, and it’d become a laughing-stock for non-critical thinkers.

See also: Y2K…or more recently, comparing COVID death rates for vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations.

[-] Sharpiemarker@feddit.de 17 points 1 year ago

And the worst part is, average citizens like yourself aren't a massive burden on the environment. It's people like Elon Musk flying personal jets across the world for dinner, who are actively contributing to the death of the planet.

[-] golamas1999@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

The jets are bad but what is worse are the handle full of billionaires and csuite execs who have the money and power to decide company policies and bribe politicians and governments: lobbying, independent expenditures, gala dinners, super pacs, incentives, revolving doors, private fundraising, paid speeches; to look the other way so they can pollute however much they want.

Nothing is Ethical under Capitalism.

Social Democracy is better but still exports the suffering to the global south.

Workers of the world must unite to over come the absolute insanity of the capital class.

[-] ArcticCircleSystem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

And how are we supposed to do that? ~Strawberry

[-] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Unfortunately, everyone participates and it adds up. If you want to compare such personal consumption like jets, then the rich account for about 15% of the global emissions.

Here's a chart:

from this report: https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/carbon-inequality-in-2030-per-capita-consumption-emissions-and-the-15c-goal-621305/

The share of total global emissions associated with the consumption of the richest 1% is set to continue to grow, from 13% in 1990, to 15% in 2015 and 16% in 2030.

If you want to include the rich's capital, which you should, because that has to change:

the bottom 50% of the world population emitted 12% of global emissions in 2019, whereas the top 10% emitted 48% of the total. Since 1990, the bottom 50% of the world population has been responsible for only 16% of all emissions growth, whereas the top 1% has been responsible for 23% of the total. While per-capita emissions of the global top 1% increased since 1990, emissions from low- and middle-income groups within rich countries declined. Contrary to the situation in 1990, 63% of the global inequality in individual emissions is now due to a gap between low and high emitters within countries rather than between countries. Finally, the bulk of total emissions from the global top 1% of the world population comes from their investments rather than from their consumption. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00955-z

But if you imagine that the petite bourgeois lifestyle of McMansion in suburbia, cars and driving around everywhere, eating boatloads of primary calories, and the rest of the consumption isn't contributing, you should read more. Here's a start: https://www.versobooks.com/books/3691-the-imperial-mode-of-living

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] lamprivate@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 year ago

I’ve just started to cut off feelings about it entirely - I can’t handle seeing this stuff everyday. I’m just resigned that it’s too late and live your life while you can.

[-] Parallax@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You can only do so much. Life was set up this way for us by countless generations before us. You can reduce your energy requirements, reduce/reuse/recycle, but it will only help so much at the individual level. Never stop trying. Never stop trying to convince your friends and family to reduce their footprint. I bug my SO every time they put something recyclable in the trash or they buy something we don't need.

But the world is burning because of greed and we can't individually put an end to that. Live your life, do what you can, share love. It's the best we can do right now.

[-] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

The key is to learn to deal with your death anxiety.

[-] WhiteHawk@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

That's a lot easier said than done

[-] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Magic mushrooms can help.

[-] Art3sian@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I like to look on the bright side, in that climate change will either wipe humans off the map or send us back to the Stone Age so we no longer have any real impact.

Both scenarios will heal the planet, animals will re-populate, and homeostasis will again be restored. Checks and balances. We’ll just be another animal that that got out of control, which nature corrected, like it’s done thousands of times over with every animal that’s ever been out of control.

A healthy world. I like that outcome, with or without us.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

I don't think you realize how much even stone age humans fucked up the planet. Half of Australia's forests were burned down and most of America's megafauna was hunted to extinction and the people who did it had little more than stone tools.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Katana314@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Now I wonder if some future intelligent race could ever come across us through archaeological digs, and we become that "highly advanced race that died out" that's so common in fiction.

load more comments (1 replies)
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
777 points (98.4% liked)

News

23265 readers
3965 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS