Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less).
I don’t see any of those things reducing microplastics in the environment nor plastic being dumped in the rivers and ocean. The motivation behind recycling has very little to do with climate change.
Am I wrong I thinking that the CO2 emission from plastics is missing the point a bit. The issue in my mind is that the plastics remain in nature for a very long time with unknown health risks to us and the ecosystem.
When comparing a plastic bag vs a paper bag for shopping I hear the argument that making the paper bag has a lot more co2 emissions tied to it. But if I throw it in the bin it will be mulch before the end of the month.
None of these are practical choices for an average anyone because the vast majority of the product of our labor is stolen from us. Yet, we’re asked to sacrifice to preserve those corporate profits.
No. It’d be insane to make sacrifices for the benefit of my oppressor. Instead, I’ll make larger sacrifices for revolution and my neighbors.
I mean, it’s an interesting point but do keep in mind how much lower effort light bulbs are compared to a plant based diet. If you compare eating 1/8 less meat (like meatless Mondays) that’s still probably harder than swapping to less shitty light bulbs.
Messaging should include both, although I’m with you that the focus is disproportionately on less efficient methods (especially plastic recycling, which is mostly a way to pass blame to consumers).
Since I’m not planning on having any children, I can eat 7 times as much meat as I do now and still net a reduction in CO2! And I don’t like flying, so that brings me up to almost 10x as much meat in my diet!
Same! No kids, no air travel(hate planes and have no real reason to be flying). I try to only eat chicken and fish(health reasons) so I guess I’m doing pretty good on my environmental impact.
I don’t see any of those things reducing microplastics in the environment nor plastic being dumped in the rivers and ocean. The motivation behind recycling has very little to do with climate change.
Could just stop running one cruise ship for like 15 minutes.
And, we could enforce existing EPA regulations in a meaningful way upon industrial production.
🤯
What’s ironic is when cruise ships burned sulfur-heavy fuels, they were actually cooling the atmosphere.
More toxic, but less heating.
But what would happen to the bunker fuel market?!
Am I wrong I thinking that the CO2 emission from plastics is missing the point a bit. The issue in my mind is that the plastics remain in nature for a very long time with unknown health risks to us and the ecosystem.
When comparing a plastic bag vs a paper bag for shopping I hear the argument that making the paper bag has a lot more co2 emissions tied to it. But if I throw it in the bin it will be mulch before the end of the month.
None of these are practical choices for an average anyone because the vast majority of the product of our labor is stolen from us. Yet, we’re asked to sacrifice to preserve those corporate profits.
No. It’d be insane to make sacrifices for the benefit of my oppressor. Instead, I’ll make larger sacrifices for revolution and my neighbors.
I mean, it’s an interesting point but do keep in mind how much lower effort light bulbs are compared to a plant based diet. If you compare eating 1/8 less meat (like meatless Mondays) that’s still probably harder than swapping to less shitty light bulbs.
Messaging should include both, although I’m with you that the focus is disproportionately on less efficient methods (especially plastic recycling, which is mostly a way to pass blame to consumers).
Since I’m not planning on having any children, I can eat 7 times as much meat as I do now and still net a reduction in CO2! And I don’t like flying, so that brings me up to almost 10x as much meat in my diet!
Same! No kids, no air travel(hate planes and have no real reason to be flying). I try to only eat chicken and fish(health reasons) so I guess I’m doing pretty good on my environmental impact.
It’s not an
ORoperator, doing all those actions would be better.I’m having trouble opening the link but found it again.
Here in case anyone else also had trouble.
This one is for Americans who use cars as shoes, umbrellas and shopping bags. Normally, the need to switch to a plant-based would be higher.