this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
596 points (97.9% liked)

The memes of the climate

1607 readers
33 users here now

The climate of the memes of the climate!

Planet is on fire!

mod notice: do not hesitate to report abusive comments, I am not always here.

rules:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not systemic vs individual. It's both.

Unless you believe politicians will ever tax and remove subsidies from meat. I'm not holding my breath for that one.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

On the one hand, I could stop buying yogurt in a disposable plastic cup. On the other, I could shut down the factory that makes yogurt in disposable plastic cups.

These two things are of equal importance and have the same effect.

I’m very smart and haven’t been psyoped.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Alright, lets get rid of gasoline and meat on a systemic level.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is a false dichotomy.

You don’t need to all or nothing these.

You can greatly regulate the use of gasoline and provide viable alternatives (bike lanes, public transport, electric vehicles) that don’t disrupt society in the same way we can reduce meat consumption or use far more sustainable agriculture practices (less factory farming and more permaculture practices).

Yes this will result in things being more expensive and ‘line not going up’ as fast.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I agree completely, which is why I'm a very strong proponent of sustainable urbanism and sustainable agriculture. Only thing I'll add is that reducing our car-dependent suburban sprawl will actually be good for the economy, not just the environment. Not only does the housing crisis knee-cap the economy (and the housing crisis is largely a consequence of our pursuit of car-dependent suburban sprawl), but car-dependent suburban sprawl is a fiscally unsustainable ponzi scheme. Building denser, more walkable and transit-oriented cities would save money, stymie the housing crisis, reduce inequality, and reduce emissions.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A plant based diet can reduce 75% of land use and cut 14.5% of emissions, then the freed up land can be used for rewilding.

So we really should go all out on ending meat consumption.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Going 0-100 is impossible. You need to find a compromise that people will actually agree with in a democracy.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If people democratically vote for extinction, it should at least be clearly stated on a ballot, on all ballots, on all receipts, on everything. (Democracy requires informed participants, it's not optional)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

We can tax them into oblivion. Or at least stop subsidizing them as a start.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I always assumed it was what was left of us after getting stepped on by the corporate behemoth if it were displeased by our peasant actions.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Here's a solution: force all new buildings to use a heat pump for heating and cooling.

Here's another: tax all private jet flights $2000 per trip

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Think you missed a couple of zeroes off that tax number buddy.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Also heavily tax SUVs, maybe even impose a limitation on having only businesses buying SUVs with special permits justifying the need of one

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

$2000 per trip

per km

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Systemic? You mean corporations, specific nameable corporations, not some amorphous system.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

yes, specific corporations need to change, but they will not change until they are forced to by the system

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

Not necessarily. I, for one, mostly (i.e. at least a little bit >50%) blame the deliberately-low-density zoning code and early FHA policy (e.g. redlining and deliberately recommending car-centric development patterns).

Did Standard Oil and General Motors have a huge influence? Sure, but they didn't literally pass the laws.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The individual carbon footprint is not a red herring, it's valid way of talking about GHG emissions with numbers.

More importantly, it's the Fossil Fuel sector reminding you that you're their bitch.

If you don't like individual action, no problem, the systemic approach is to ban fossil fuels extraction, production and distribution. You're OK with that, right?

edit: the generic you, not OP

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why is the B word removed? Is that a Lemmy.world automod or something? I had it happen to me as well, but I can say a million other words that don't get automatically removed.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Pretty sure that's a lemmy.ml thing because they are a bunch of pussies lol

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Sure, individual changes will not make nearly enough of a statistical difference. Lack of change in response to reality is however, morally abhorrent. Don't be morally abhorrent 🤷 Maybe your actions will even have an affect on other people, who while also individually don't make a statistical difference, make more than just you, and also makes fewer people surrounding you less morally abhorrent. You don't need a bunch of policy makers to tell you what is right and wrong. You're an adult. Do the right thing.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not about that. It's about actually trying to solve the problem which we know from hundreds of years of history, almost always has to happen at the governmental level

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, I still make choices in my personal life to try to live as sustainably as is practical, including major choices like career path. But the only solution that will ever actually work to our systemic issues is good policy. Not everyone has the comfort or privilege of being able to choose sustainable options where they can, and there are many cases where there simply is no sustainable option. Groceries at the store? I doubt a "regenerative agriculture" label even exists in the vast majority of places, so good luck choosing the sustainable option there. The alternative might be becoming a homesteader and growing all your own food, but obviously that's not a solution for 99% of the population. We need policy to make there even be sustainable options in the first place, and more policy to make those sustainable options the preferred choice or maybe even the only choice.