The aviation sector is about 2%.
Sounds like another premature optimization problem, as applied to climate change.
“Premature optimization is the root of all evil“
https://wiki.c2.com/?PrematureOptimization=
What about coal?
What about coal?
Sounds like another premature optimization problem, as applied to climate change.
“Premature optimization is the root of all evil“
https://wiki.c2.com/?PrematureOptimization=
What about coal?
What about coal?
What about coal? You tell me, what part of fixing rice production interferes with shutting down coal mining? Because as far as anyone can tell, the answer is not a single part.
“A 100 years of coal emissions is 1000 years of rice”
By not addressing the big problems sooner, we have shortened the window to seeing significant problems.
We’d have more time to solve the smaller problems, or they may take of themselves. For example, the population in China will drop significantly in this century.
Unfortunately, it sounds like we are lining up our miracles so by 2050, we’ll be at net zero.
Why does making agricultural improvements prevent dealing with coal?
> By not addressing the big problems sooner, we have shortened the window to seeing significant problems.
This is true of all problems, not just the big ones.
> We’d have more time to solve the smaller problems, or they may take of themselves.
If we dealt with all of the smaller problems, we'd have more time to solve the larger problems, or they make take care of themselves. For example, the population in China will drop significantly this century, reducing the need for power consumption from coal plants.
It's like complaining that the folks making bicycles aren't making office buildings: stop being part of the problem by pretending these are mutually exclusive problems to solve and that people should stop trying to solve entire percentage values. 2% is not "a drop in the bucket", 2% is a huge number.
We can have different people work on different problems at the same time. By insisting we don't do something in parallel, all you're doing is telling folks to stop solving problems they can solve at an industrial scale. Are you solving coal, right now? No? Why are you wasting time and not solving coal? Oh you're doing something else atm? Why aren't you dropping that on the spot and solving coal? This is not a constructive attitude, it's flat out being part of the problem.
I'm not even the biggest contributor! Mechanized recycling trucks hoist the bins high in the air and let stuff fall into a hopper on the back, and on a windy day, every single bin they pick up produces a few pieces of litter. I don't know why I should change my lifestyle while trucks like that still exist.
Let me fix it for you.
“You litter frequently in your neighborhood, while 200 people litter in the park across town. What problem should the town address sooner?”
We are at the brink of too late.
Where did you go wrong?
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/20/ipcc-cli...
Times up.
I'm not even the biggest contributor! Fast-food restaurants and soft drink companies keep promoting unhealthy diets from which people develop diseases which eventually leads to thousands deaths per year. Plus, most people conciously make awful lifestyle choices which will eventually contribute to their deaths. I don't know why I should change my lifestyle while people like that exist.
Germany emits 2% of all CO2, not worth us doing anything then?
That won't even offset my own impact on the rest of the world. But I'm showing up to meetings with other people, giving advice, hopefully some inspiration, as well as plants to make the process a little more accessible to other people.
Best case at the end of this, I've helped dozens of people reduce their carbon footprint, and they've helped hundreds do the same, and so on. All of us will still have a positive carbon footprint, but we've called into question what the average footprint should look like. Us and a hundred other people who think about things like transportation or building standards or entertainment.
The end goal is that becoming a giver instead of a taker represents sacrificing 10% of your lifestyle instead of 75%. It's very hard to peer pressure people into giving up 75% of what makes life worth living.
A 100 years of coal emissions is 1000 years of rice.
You don't balance a budget by only looking at the tallest tent pole.
You have to ask yourself what proportion of the overall budget a particular concern is 'worth' and figure out how to get there. Until that total is reduced to < 100% you will always be in debt. Starbucks or no Starbucks.
From there you chip away at each element as the opportunity arises, balancing opportunity against cost (both of action and inaction). If something proves to be too hard to change, you have to compromise elsewhere. And in the long run, order only matters if you go bankrupt in the middle of the process.