There was a meme going around a few years ago, about the aliens arriving and declaring that they were going to eliminate all human governments, and rule the entire planet, and the major reaction was, “Oh, thank god, finally…”
For starters…
Save energy at home
Much of our electricity and heat are powered by coal, oil, and gas. Use less energy by lowering your heating and cooling, switching to LED light bulbs and energy-efficient electric appliances, washing your laundry with cold water, or hanging things to dry instead of using a dryer.
Walk, bike, or take public transport
The world’s roadways are clogged with vehicles, most of them burning diesel or gasoline. Walking or riding a bike instead of driving will reduce greenhouse gas emissions — and help your health and fitness. For longer distances, consider taking a train or bus. And carpool whenever possible.
Eat more vegetables
Eating more vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and less meat and dairy, can significantly lower your environmental impact. Producing plant-based foods generally results in fewer greenhouse gas emissions and requires less energy, land, and water.
Consider your travel
Airplanes burn large amounts of fossil fuels, producing significant greenhouse gas emissions. That makes taking fewer flights one of the fastest ways to reduce your environmental impact. When you can, meet virtually, take a train, or skip that long-distance trip altogether.
Throw away less food
When you throw food away, you’re also wasting the resources and energy that were used to grow, produce, package, and transport it. And when food rots in a landfill, it produces methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. So use what you buy and compost any leftovers.
Reduce, reuse, repair & recycle
Electronics, clothes, and other items we buy cause carbon emissions at each point in production, from the extraction of raw materials to manufacturing and transporting goods to market. To protect our climate, buy fewer things, shop second-hand, repair what you can, and recycle.
Change your home’s source of energy
Ask your utility company if your home energy comes from oil, coal, or gas. If possible, see if you can switch to renewable sources such as wind or solar. Or install solar panels on your roof to generate energy for your home.
Switch to an electric vehicle
If you plan to buy a car, consider going electric, with more and cheaper models coming on the market. Even if they still run on electricity produced from fossil fuels, electric cars help reduce air pollution and cause significantly fewer greenhouse gas emissions than gas or diesel-powered vehicles.
Or a Far Side cartoon…
I remember the first time I saw (or noticed) on our Weather Network there was the smog warning (and this was fucking Ottawa, where there hasn’t been heavy industry for decades) thinking that this should be the start of serious change, not warnings against exerting yourself outside. I think that this was in the late '90s.
Personally I think we’re doomed since nobody is really prepared to make even minimal sacrifices. With the exception on one four year period when I had a 50 km (each way) I have never driven to work; I’ve either biked, bused, or walked. Almost all of my coworkers have driven to work, even those who have had shorter commutes than me.
Now I’m not bragging or criticising because it’s important for me to acknowledge that I actually like walking and I love cycling. So would I be any better? I honestly don’t know.
Walking and cycling are both eco-friendly and good exercise so good for you.
When we just had a president whose political party claimed Global Warming as a hoax, it was easy for people to ignore the science and do nothing since the government didn’t care. For those who did try to reduce their carbon footprint, it felt like Sisyphus since nobody else was doing it.
While I don’t expect Pakistan or Russia to make big changes if the US, Canada, and Western Europe did something coordinated that might encourage other countries to join in. I know there is the Paris Accord, and that’s certainly a step in the right direction…
I’ve concluded that the vast majority of people are unable to deal with threats that are not direct and immediate. As in, those aliens would have to have launched their invasion and started shooting people right in front of them.
This includes even more mundane threats, like being able to pay for some future unexpected bill. But spending some money now fixes an immediate problem, while saving money only fixes some hypothetical future problem.
Obviously this also applies to diffuse, indirect threats like climate change. But even something less diffuse like an asteroid bearing down on us would also leave people unable to manage a response. It’s probably not real, those egghead scientists are just looking for money, blah blah. It’s not real until it actually strikes, at which point it’s a bit too late.
The only chance we have against climate change is that it will prove economic to solve, and the tiny minority of people that are capable of applying the right technologies to the problem will get super rich and outcompete entrenched industries. Not really what I’d prefer to pin my hopes on, but that’s how it is.
Dr. Strangelove may be right.
So to restate the question, how bad does it have to get before governments allocate vast sums of money to combat climate change, motivating people/companies to develop technologies needed to stop things from getting worse?
Does Manhattan have to be partially inundated? Do there have to be multiple super storms hitting the US simultaneously? How about a decades-long megadrought?
The problem with that stuff is that it’s still indirect. Oh, it’s just natural variation, we’re coming out of an ice age, the sun is getting hotter, it’s God punishing us for all the gay people, etc. There’s just no connection between burning gasoline/jet fuel/coal and coastal flooding that doesn’t pass through those ivory tower elitist scientists.
Sure, most of the left has at least some connection with reality, and is at least onboard with the basic idea of climate change. But as soon as it impacts gas prices or airline tickets, that’s what the conversation transitions to. The existential threat to civilization is almost forgotten about.
Those suggestions are all rather inconvenient.
(Bolding mine)
The problem in Ukraine and overall Europe is dire, unfortunate and very sad. However, it is not a reflection of the world. The Middle East / Africa / other parts of the world have gone through similar crises / tragedies in the recent past.
As the Indian External Minister remarked recently in Slovakia : “Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe’s problems are the world’s problems, but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems.” I agree with this.
As a long term tree hugger, I agree. Even the words for folks like us who try to walk gently on the world are usually pejoratives.
I’m also old, so my exit plan isn’t as extreme as using it as a young person.
You kids are seriously screwed and I am sorry. I really did try my best.
ISWYDT. Al Gore agrees.
I think Al Gore is a good example to bring up here. His environmentalism work has done a lot to spread awareness of the issues, he’s supposedly worked to reduce the energy use of his home, he’s supposedly gone vegan. I expect he’s genuinely concerned about the environment and has some understanding of the stakes involved.
But his carbon footprint is absolutely ginourmous, even by US standards. Even subtracting frequent international trips, which can be said to be important to spread awareness and knowledge of climate change issues, you are left with someone who owns multiple larger than average homes and chooses to stay in the top 1%?, 0.1%? of the world’s individual carbon emitters.
No wonder individuals who don’t have that awareness and those beliefs struggle to make environmentally friendly choices.
To me, it’s a case of whistling in the dark. It’s not that bad… I can’t see it happening… it’s decades away… it’s not going to hurt me (unless I live on the west coast of Florida)… do we really need all that ice up there? I get it, but I don’t get the hypocrisy.
These people believe in science only when it suits them and rail against it when it’s inconvenient. When a religious person gets a sharp pain in their chest, they invariably call 911 and ask to go to the nearest ER, not their local church. If you don’t want to believe in science, that’s fine, just don’t be hypocritical about it.
Yes, there are people who think this way, but there are also lots of people who absolutely are convinced there’s a problem; what they doubt is their ability to do anything about it.
The things you mentioned earlier—can you convince me that it would save the planet if we did them? You (maybe not you personally, but people who talk about climate change) are asking people to change the way they live, give things up, or take on major added expense, while telling them that we’re all doomed anyway because people with much larger carbon footprints than they have are just going on doing what they’re doing.
Individually, there really isn’t. It does require coordinated action, across international lines, in order to address the issues involved here.
What do you mean by “save the planet”?
The planet will be fine, there’s nothing we can do to stop it from spinning around the sun for the next few billion years.
Life on the planet will probably even survive what we are doing to it. It’s even unlikely that humans will go extinct.
What is going to happen is that people are going to suffer, they are going to die, and they are probably going to make a big mess of things along the way, because people don’t tend to suffer and die quietly.
Best case scenario for those of us fortunate enough to live in wealthy countries largely insulated from these effects is a massive drop in our standard of living.
I disagree that’s the message that is given by those wishing to mitigate the damage, though I will agree that that is the message as deliberately misrepresented by those on side global climate change.
Generally, in order for the “common foe” thing to work, psychologically, it should be done either by
- intentional malice, an enemy coming for us
or
- something really scary that happens quite rapidly instead of gradually.
The reason climate change doesn’t work to rally everyone is because it’s neither. It’s not like space aliens or some sentient/human enemy coming to attack us, nor is it rapid. It is a slow, gradual thing that unfolds imperceptibly slow and isn’t something we can blow up with missiles.
We have already done permanent damage to the environment. Crying over the spilt milk is pointless, as is thinking we will restore past conditions by buying electric cars. The greatest effort needs to be directed toward staying alive in the mess we created. The earth is going to get hotter for a long time. Sea level will be rising for a long time. Some natural resources are getting used up. It’s going to happen, it’s happening now. Stopping man made global climate change is not happening soon. It’s not a total waste of time to try to change that situation but if we don’t concentrate on dealing with problems already created already and will occur in the foreseeable future then we won’t be around when the earth finally returns to something like the state we found it in.
Yes, there’s already quite a bit baked in. But, we can make it even worse if we don’t do anything to mitigate what we are going.
And there’s a big difference between addressing the problems that come from a 2 degree rise in average temperature and 4.
Sure, we have to do what is possible to keep it from getting worse. But we also have to deal with the inevitable because we didn’t pay attention to it before. Drawing CO2 out of the atmosphere to stop global climate change sounds much cooler and more desirable than changes to agriculture to deal with the existing effects of climate change, but the latter is more necessary to do now, not to mention more feasible.