Global warming appears to have shifted into a faster gear. After removing the effects of El Niño, volcanic eruptions, and solar cycles, researchers found that the planet has warmed at roughly 0.35°C per decade over the past ten years, compared with just under 0.2°C per decade from 1970 to 2015. The acceleration, which becomes visible around 2013 to 2015, appeared across five major global temperature datasets with more than 98% statistical certainty.
There is some hope if we chip at it as much as we can. No action is too small:
If we convince ourselves we are screwed, we ll give up. Be the hero of your own story. YOU DO NOT NEED TO GET IT 100% RIGHT. Any improvement is improvement. We all live different lives, and the economy is hard on alot of us.
I believe:)
Edit: I get that industries/billionaires represent a majority of this issue. I also believe that change starts home. We gotta tackle this at every level, even if it seems lost. The alternative is watching it happen and wait for the others to change. This is a prime “tragedy of the common” problem. You drink filtered tap water? Well those plastic bottles dont get made, thrown away. Do this a lifetime and those bottles represent a hill of waste that never existed.
I m rooting for you, for us!
The bidet gang would like a word with you.
(Seriously though: I agree that every action counts, but I also think that, even if the majority of the population followed that list perfectly, the globalized corporate structure would still be operating in such a way that the personal impact wouldn’t be noticeable. When agriculture produces more than what’s sold, they have no issue dumping the items that don’t sell into the ground. Clothing outlets will shred unsold merch instead of giving it away. The waste is built into the system and a structural change is needed NOW if we are to survive.)
If there was a decline in consumption of climate harming products, large enough that these companies could see it in thier financial reports, I cant believe it wouldnt have any effect on the market.
Youre points are valid, and I agree with them, but if a majority wanted to (ideally, and I dont think they will) I think “voting with our wallet” would work, it is simple, but not practical because humans seem to love convience.
Correct. Convenience is just too important. Also status symbols because people just want to be seen as big/successful/important/… regardless if that damages things.
The population grew 4 billion in the last few decades. Climate damaging corps that undercut the cost of responsibly produced products will still win out unless there’s regulation that forces them to be responsible. Snapple shifted from glass to plastic bottles. It’s simply cheaper to ship plastic with less damages, as an example.
You could have half of the world population buying responsibly, but these companies will still do large scale damage from the other half.
Plastic bottles are a good example. They are much lighter, so far less handling and transportation cost. Having multiple shapes for various products/companies makes it harder for collection etc. of glass. And glass simply takes a shit ton of energy (natural gas) to produce and recycle. So the climate cost is not simply “yes glass is better for the climate”. It only is when it gets refilled a ton of times and the transportation is only short distances (so when there is a high population density)
Anyway, when halve stop buying cheap shit they don’t even need, we will not only save that many resources but also avoid all of the trash that it inevitably ends up being a few years later. Companies would not continue production of the things.
I doubt half will make them stop production. They’d shift to another wasteful market.
The faster fix would be for companies to purposefully stop producing the garbage that isn’t needed, and to improve the goods that are needed so they aren’t as harmful.