I don’t know why this triggers such skepticism in me. Particularly the section on novel entities. But it feels funny, somehow, and I can’t put my finger on it.
Do you mean in average number of active participants? Because everywhere I look, there are headlines full of religious based government decisions being made. So while the number of sheep in the flock might be lower, the power being wielded by the religious leadership is not weak at all
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c04158
"Outside the Safe Operating Space of the Planetary Boundary for Novel Entities"
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 3, 1510–1521
I know it does for me - because the people who claim to believe in it the most don't actually live their lives as if they actually believed it. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy to do whatever I could reasonably do to create cooler summers and less smog, but I've never heard any actual concrete proposal beyond "vote democrat".
The longer we wait, the more people are going to get shot by that gun.
* Eat half the meat you do or less
* Don‘t fly unless absolutely necessary
* Get on a plan for renewable electrical energy if possible
I know, far from everything in this topic is about consumer choices but a lot really is. If you don‘t want the nanny state to fix your problems you can start at your own doorstep.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-...
So it should be don’t travel so far and if you have to, take a train and if there’s no train, carpool, but fly rather than drive if you are traveling alone.
On a per weight basis, chicken is half the price of peanut butter or cheese at the local grocery store. A whole cooked chicken is even cheaper at Costco. Not everyone can afford to eat less meat and replace it with plant protein.
1. If you can afford it, you should still reduce.
2. The meat and dairy industries are heavily subsidized especially in developed countries. These prices are artificially low.[1]
The subsidies could of course be shifted to human edible plants (instead of feeding corn/maize) making plant-based diets more affordable.
At the moment however few politician want to be connected to rising meat prices. If they were to get clear signals from their voters for shifting preferences of course that could also change.
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/14/global-f...
- Chicken produces around 1/6 the CO2 of beef, and less than cheese.
- Chicken uses around 1/10 the water than beef does.
- Beef produces lots of methane and chicken doesn't.
Chicken consumption isn't really a problem. When we say "reduce meat consumption" we should be saying reduce beef consumption.
It’s like self flagellation in private. Maybe soul cleansing religiously or something, but utterly pointless in the real world.
In the area of personal mobility, change away from cars could only result from collective action, e.g. drastic improvements to public transport and less from personal choice. (EVs however or hybrids are also a real option for many.)
The real answer is definitely vote Democratic, one cannot vote democrat as that's not a party in the US. But more than that it gets involved in the political process such that change to our policies are done with climate change in kind. You won't get that from Republicans.
Trump called the global warming a "Chinese hoax." If you're looking for leverages to influence the global climate as a US citizen, "vote democrat" is not a bad strategy. (Have to add: it's not because democrats are awesome, but because the alternative is horrible.)