Is there an ordered list of what produces most pollution? What's at the top? Is there an easy way to answer the question "I just did environmentally bad thing X, now what can I do to offset that?"
> Is there an easy way to answer the question "I just did environmentally bad thing X, now what can I do to offset that?"
Little bit but to seriously make an impact you might have to look for alternative sources of powering your life. But nevertheless every single bit helps. This climate change conundrum cannot be fixed without the entire planet committing to it.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emis...
Meat production is almost as much as transportation, roughly 17%.
That 17% includes all transportation related to meat production. If meat was replaced by plant-based foods, not all of that transportation could be eliminated.
Processing and transportation of animal products is 6% of the meat production emissions. Feed production also involves transportation, that would add maybe half of that (3%).
[1] http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-mi...
https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-global-...
Assuming switching to chicken reduces carbon by 12%, assuming carbon responsible for 250,000 death then meat consumption is responsible 30,000 ppl/year
Number of cows in u.s. 30,000,000 for 3% of global market
US market responsible for 900 deaths / year 140 chickens / cow(calorie wise)
estimated 20 years of life lost per death
18,000 QALY for 4.1 billion more chickens
Rough estimate of 2.3 minutes of human life gained per chicken raised
> People killed by climate change 250,000/year
Is that a current number? Or a projection of what might happen with 2 degree or 4 degree Celsius increase in temperature?
And if the entire planet will not commit as you desire? Then what will you do? War is the ultimate extension of any policy; will you personally go kill other people because they burn oil?
I've got nothing against renewables, but don't like this kind of absolutist rhetoric.
You can do both. Campaign for political change and change your personal behaviour. I've done radical changes to my life at least last few years to reduce my pollution/co2 footprint and if more people think like this it _will_ help.
So saying that there is nothing that can be done on the individual level is quite dangerous as I personally think over time this will have the biggest effect as more and more people realise that is what has to be done.
Then you need the politicians to kick remaining ignorant part of the population into action.
With CO2 emissions we have a lot of individuals trying to make changes and again it's not really fixing things - CO2 levels keep going up. It's a bit trickier than the ozone thing though.
Reducing carbon emissions does so and due to that it requires knowledge and action from the individual I think as a politician trying to change people who do not want to change is doomed.
It is a lot trickier than the ozone issue and I think it requires action on all levels from the individual to the UN.
The price change will hopefully also accelerate R&D into alternatives which will also be a big part.
Ah yes, the 1%, living in their mansions and driving Teslas to their summer homes, telling the rest of the world that they need to "make radical changes". Good luck with that.
* Use public transportation to work (bus/train)
* Drastically reduced meat consumption from every day to once a week. I still eat fish about twice a week.
* Converted part of my garden (my house is 150 square meters so I wouldn't exactly call it a mansion) to a vegetable garden.
* Make sure the food I do buy is produced locally, it is clearly marked in the stores. I buy honey and eggs from the farm right next door.
* When I do go to the store I walk instead of driving.
* I bought but have not yet received an electric car. Yes it's a tesla but I have a normal job and with the way taxes are structured here it's a very common car on the road along with other electrics like leafs, e-trons, kias, e golfs etc.
* Not travelling too far for vacations, avoiding air travel as much as possible. Recently I've mostly use air due to work, but there too I often drive/take the train 8-10 hours instead of taking the plane.
There is plenty more to do, but for me personally I can't just sit idle and you have to start somewhere.
And last I did not tell anyone to radically change their lives, I said I did so myself. But the more people that do it the better.
I am wondering if you see any possibility to avoid work related air travel as well? I understand that certain jobs require flying but I also see, at least at my own company, that a lot of those flights are not really necessary and could easily be avoided. Would you mind to elaborate?
* Video conferencing
* Car/train/bus transportation if the hours used is acceptable. A good way to do this is a "night train" with a sleeping compartment.
* The big one: electric planes.
However it is a though one. Sometimes you just have to travel far to meet someone face to face and unfortunately the only way to achieve this in a reasonable way today is by hydrocarbon burning air travel.
Again, most people on the planet are just scraping by.
They don't have time to garden. They can't afford to shop at farmer's markets. They can't afford most cars, let alone electric vehicles.
I assume your intentions are good, but climate change won't be remotely close to solved by such measures, and when people say, "I bought a Tesla so I could drive it to my summer home and do my part for the planet!" it probably causes more resentment from the 99% than anything else.
I'll admit that approach works better with a simpler less wide ranging issue. Examples off the top of my head, in the UK I don't believe you can buy non fair trade bananas from any of the major supermarkets, and most eggs now seem to be free range.
What are you comparing here? Could a mega farm invest in slightly more efficient processes than a mere 'very large farm'? Possibly. But by that time you've already got all the issues of grubbing up hedgerows, mono cropping, reliance on artificial fertilizers, soil erosion, etc.
A small organic subsistence farmer isn't going to have anywhere near the same impact. Now you may not be able to feed the world using that model, but I don't think its fair to say that the environmental impact is worse compared to intensive agriculture.
In Ontario (Canada) we elected a conservative government who is running advertisements against the Federal Carbon Tax saying:
> “Ontario has a better way: holding the biggest polluters accountable; reducing trash; and keeping our lakes clean. A carbon tax isn’t the only way to fight climate change.”
My government thinks reducing trash and lake runoff is fighting climate change. Everything I've personally done; switching to public transit, flying less and buying my electricity from a green supplier has been swamped by this huge step backward at the political level.
Together we actually make a difference. Personally I also try to encourage friends and family in a non pushy way to attempt some of the things I do. Many respond positively, especially considering other benefits like eating more healthy and walking more.
One example might be to institute a "carbon savings account" which individuals add to when they add solar panels, buy more efficient vehicles and appliances, reduce their heating bills... whatever's measureable. Mandatory restrictions on carbon-intensive activity (there's no way around that anyway) would enable spending these rewards.
Wouldn't a Carbon Tax do exactly that? At least it would bring your individual financial interests in line with with society's climate interests. It would mean that doing whatever costs you the least money is likewise best for your carbon footprint (which you would no longer have to think about in order to optimize).
It's ranked in terms of low-hanging fruit ('these are the highest-impact changes we could make') rather than absolute harm, but the spirit is the same as the question you're asking.
Realistically, the only thing you can do as an individual is campaign for political change:
your choice is to vote hard environmentalist, agitate hard for immediate change, stop flying and stop driving and stop eating red meat.
or don't. but don't delude yourself. a lot of people wish so hard there were easier options that they will endlessly talk about made up ones. but those are the only real ones today.
Of course there is. How many steaks is a flight from London to Paris?
I have 3 kids, so I'm basically forced on one side of the climate debate. I worry will soon have to wear a scarlet letter for my shame.
Instead, I intensely advocate for technology-based approaches to climate stabilization, such as marine cloud brightening.