244
These Climate Activists Make People Uncomfortable -- And It's Working
(www.rollingstone.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2024
244 points (97.3% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5282 readers
530 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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The article is about fighting oil and gas and you bring up veganism and state that if they're not vegans they aren't truly fighting for the cause?? Defeating oil and gas would be a great thing for the world and being vegan has nothing to do with any of it. But way to keep your eye on the prize Showroom. They certainly can't lobby to make the world a better place if they eat chicken nuggets from time to time. The Audacity of these people.
I was actually asking about the values of the group, not the article specifically.
From what I understand (after reading the group's website), is that they aren't only against oil and gas but all forms of industry and government leaders who can impact climate change.
Their posted values include “peacefulness”, which is in line with the vegan movement.
Their posted values also include “solidarity”, and explains that they “stand with” other movements, including racial and economic justice. This is also in line with the vegan movement.
I was merely curious, since veganism would be a great fit for the members of that group. It would certainly elevate their credibility.
They're referring to the highlighted part.
No, because comparing individual lifestyle choices like diet to systemic issues like fossil fuel consumption doesn't quite align in terms of impact. Fossil fuels are responsible for 89% of CO2 emissions and 65% of all greenhouse gas emissions globally, whereas all agricultural livestock accounts for around 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. While every bit helps, the scale of change needed to significantly reduce our carbon footprint goes far beyond individual actions—it requires systemic transformation, particularly in how we produce and consume energy [International Energy Agency, 2020; FAO, 2013]. Furthermore, while there are viable alternatives to fossil fuels—such as solar, wind, and hydroelectric power—the same breadth of alternatives doesn't exist for diet. Enforcing dietary changes can be culturally sensitive and challenging, making it a less feasible solution for rapid global implementation. It's essential to focus our efforts where the biggest impact can be made, and that's on reducing dependency on fossil fuels.
@NegativeInf @Showroom7561 @climate
The scale of an individuals effect, depends on how many other people do "it".
As one example, if l was say "No thanks! I've brought my own non-plastic bag" to the retailer asking if l want a (plastic) bag, that action didn't stop that plastic bag from being manufactured.
But, if 90% of people stopped using the retailers plastic bags, that retailer would order less plastic bags.
Scale this up on a population level (& do the math).
@NegativeInf @Showroom7561 @climate
The scale of an individuals effect, depends on how many other people do "it".
As one example, if l was say "No thanks! I've brought my own non-plastic bag" to the retailer asking if l want a (plastic) bag, that action didn't stop that plastic bag from being manufactured.
But, if 90% of people stopped using the retailers plastic bags, that retailer would order less plastic bags.
Scale this up on a population level (& do the math).