Ask Lemmy

So if all world leaders collectively agreed to put aside their differences, ditch capitalism and mobilise their entire populations to actively work to reduce emissions tomorrow we might stand a slim chance of preventing the worst case scenario...

As an individual the single most important thing you can do is vote for leaders who will make the necessary policy changes to make a difference, assuming you live in a country where this is possible. You can try to lower your own carbon footprint, and that is laudable, but the only way to change this is with strict regulation of fossil fuels and investment in renewable energy and that requires collective action.

The most effective thing you can do is try and influence local, state, and federal policies that will reduce emissions.

I've made several changes in my life, but I know in the grand scheme of things it won't have any effect.

assassinate the top 1%.

If each of us able bodied where to go and collect scalps of the top 1% we'd have a fighting chance.

Do what you can to stop feeding the petroleum products industry. They use the money you give them to literally fuel this crisis.

• Choose an EV or hybrid for your next car
• Stop buying plastic storage containers and avoid plastics wherever you can

If you own your home, check into federal, state, and local rebates for these things:

• Replace your HVAC when it’s time with a heat pump
• Replace your water heater when it’s time with an electric or heat pump model
• If you live in a cold climate, look into electric-based heated flooring
• Look into solar panels for your roof

We wont.

That is reality, it doesn't matter if the entire world turn off fossil fuel usage permanently this instant, there is allready far too much greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere to reverse course, we might get to delay the inevitable a decade or so, but shit is comming.

Focus on income inequality and the rest will also get addressed. Cutting out meat is good, but that doesn't matter when Elon musk decides to jet from SFO to San Jose because he doesn't like traffic.

Very pessimistic view here. I believe we have already passed the point of no return with human emissions. The worst of climate change will now happen faster and sooner than it naturally would. It's just a matter of mitigating the disaster imo.

My husband once said "we're not killing the planet, we're just rearranging it in a way that is not conducive to human life". I think about that when I feel hopeless, we're just a blip on a bigger radar, and we need to drop the main character syndrome that the world dies when we do.

Also though, scalp the 1%.

A long and rough collapse, followed by a slow rebuilding of a much smaller but much more unified global society.

Adapt to it as best we can. Minimize your use of fossil fuels, particularly Natural Gas(Methane). Get some books on farming to understand a worst case need to live off grid.

We're past the point that we can go back. The glaciers on Antarctica and Greenland are in a self-sustaning melt cycle at this point.

Societal collapse.

As individuals, nothing. And if you do whilst countries like China, the US and Russia continue to pollute on a massive scale, you're being taken for a fool.

Get rid of capitalism. Which, we won't.

I know people here shit on individual action, but avoiding beef and driving are the two big ones

Degrowth until we live within planetary bounds accomplished with cultural evolution and ending capitalism is the only thing that could actually work.

All other proposed solutions fail to address the fundamental unsustainability of our way of life and could only hope to slightly slow our demise.

It's as easy as stop reproducing.

So, ummm... Welp.

Damn.

It has taken about 100 years to create this problem.

We can start to solve it, maybe today, or maybe tomorrow, but it won't go away within a single election period...

Are you the head of a major international corporation? If not, there's nothing meaningful you can do.

Nothing. There is literally nothing you can do.

https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-profile-china/

"China is the world’s largest annual greenhouse gas emitter.

In 2020, it emitted 12.3bn tonnes of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2e), amounting to 27% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the CAIT database maintained by the World Resources Institute (WRI). This includes emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF).

. . .

It is a “non-Annex I” party to the convention, meaning it is not obligated to contribute climate finance and was not required to make binding emissions cuts under the Kyoto Protocol."

Nothing changes until China changes.

Some seem to be concerned enough by it that they might threaten secession (forming new nations that will do something about it) if their nation won't do anything. And nations tend to hate secession.

If you're a world leader fishing for ideas then you could try using regulatory bodies, alternatives incentives, and monetary policies to do the following: disincentivising plastic import/manufacturing, disincentivising meat consumption, disincentivising car ownership/road-expansion, disincentivising pets, disincentivising power consumption and fossil fuels, and finally funding education and promoting smaller families with less children (these last two things are intrinsically linked). You also have to come to an agreement to do all of these things alongside other nations, because if your nation stops producing as many cows and pigs then some impoverished nation will just crank up their own production to fill the market gap.

Basically, we would only use a third as much agricultural land to live on if we didn't eat meat. With less people that would use even less land with an added bonus of lower emissions by a massive amount per person in developed nation because of lower fuel cost and power consumption. You can lower emissions even more by investing heavily into more efficient modes of transport like railways and buses, in many cases making towns and cities as well as large distance travel doable on foot without a car. We know that educated people, particularly women, lead to lower population growth: which is a good thing, because less emissions and more efficiency. Basically two techniques are being deployed in this example: lower emissions per person and lower number of persons.

Will this fix the damage we've done to the atmosphere and the planet? No, more complex solutions would need to be employed for individual problems like atmospheric methane to ensure our planet continues to be livable for the next century, but we know for a fact that even slightly lowered human activity has a huge beneficial impact because we saw those beneficial effects firsthand during the pandemic.

But wtf do I know, I'm a banjo. You're a world leader. Visit some Universities, talk to experts on panels, and figure it out.

I die, and for the first time, know true peace.

You can hope that billions of people choose to act against their own self-interest in a way that has never happened before or you can move somewhere with a cooler climate.