https://www.businessinsider.in/science/environment/news/indi...
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/april/tigers-genetic-div...
From any major airport in the world you can probably get to Brisbane for $1000 USD return. Then Brisbane to Cairns is around $100 AUD return. You could win back the cost of your flights at the Cairns Casino, the best (worst) attraction in town!
It’s far away from most people and it’s not cheap, but if you want to do it, spend the rest of this year saving up and do it when Australia opens its borders.
Heating your house and eating meat contribute far more to your personal carbon footprint than flying, unless you fly much more than usual.
1. Don’t eat meat.
2. Don’t get in airplanes.
3. Don’t drive a car.
4. Live in as small a house/apartment as you can.
5. Don’t have kids.
It turns out that when people ask, “But what can I do?” What they really mean is “What can I do that won’t really inconvenience me that much?”
One is that you're advocating for a hair-shirt, masochistic lifestyle stripped of all joy. I have no objection to you choosing a vow of poverty, and to pass on children, but don't try and sell it as inconvenience, what you're asking for is basically religious orders.
The second problem is, all you've done is reduced demand for those goods you've chosen not to consume. That makes them cheaper, so other people can afford more of them.
Congratulations, you've done... nothing! But you get to feel good (?) about it? Don't get me wrong, being a childless vegan with a bike and a tiny apartment can be a satisfying lifestyle, but doesn't it undermine the feeling of self-righteousness a little bit to know that all you've done is make it so one more suburban family with four kids can have tri-tip for dinner and fly to Cancun on holiday?
Climate change is unfortunate since it means getting many countries working together, and some may see a benefit in doing nothing.
As to what people can do? I'm not sure there is an answer. A technological solution would be great but isn't assured, voting is a problem in that you already need a lot of people thinking the same way, and leading a good lifestyle will assuage personal guilt but move the needle very little, so I think it's worthwhile but not a solution. I am not sure it will make a difference as you say when others will step in and consume what you left on the table.
My opinion is that nothing meaningful will happen until we see some obvious signs of distress and even then we'll be lucky if people scramble for a solution. We are starting to see problematic weather patterns, reef bleaching, and other evidence but since the problem is statistical in nature we always get people who say such events are not necessarily an indicator of a problem. Broader scientific literacy in the community to understand the fundamentals involved would take a generation and would have to be led from the top down meaning we get back to the same issue of bringing an entire country on board.
So I don't have an answer, but I don't think someone always needs an answer to point out something isn't working. Regulation would work within a country, but you need to get leadership on board and this is a global problem meaning one country isn't enough. The solution will have to align with selfish interests whether economic or actual survival. My hopes are on cheap green energy and maybe one of the cleaner variants of nuclear but that is more of a faith-based answer than anything. I hope it'll work out but don't know enough to be sure.
By all means do all those things: I go in that direction myself. But also vote, because there are damages that will not be remedied short of large-scale wielding of power, and voting has some chance of directing the large-scale power that can remedy the institutional bad actors.
Again just my thoughts. Didn’t mean to hit a nerve here.
Individual action is also important, but we will never solve the climate problem by ignoring what governments can/should do.
Where? Because I don’t know of a major party anywhere in the world that matches the first description.
Environmentalism, but only so long as it doesn't actually challenge the status quo of our society.
You have the Liberal Party of Canada, which brought in a carbon tax, great, but in order to justify to the public their expansion of oil sands export development. The notion that we would stop pumping oil out of the ground and burning it is unthinkable.
The even more progressive BC NDP also committed to exporting liquified natural gas to be burned in other countries, justifying it with promises of carbon tax increases.
Parties that were considering our climate crisis with due gravity would be doing everything they could to lower CO2 emissions, not taking one step forward, and one step back, and fiddling around the edges.
Personally I don't care if I ever see the reef, the Amazon or any other ecosystem. I'm pretty much interested in sustainable ecosystems to ensure human welfare.
Seems like the best idea is to just enjoy the time we have left.
Please. What a joke.
Read the IPCC reports. They are projecting massive increases in the wealth and health of the whole world in all future emissions scenarios.
Some scenarios are just worse than others, but all are better than today.
The world has been improving for centuries. The idea that we need to "enjoy what time we have left" is absolutely insane. It's pseudo-science
Yes, human impacts on the environment cause problems. No, they aren't going to cause human extinction.
Read "Enlightenment Now" or "The Rational Optimist" for some perspective.