Edit: I wanted to apologize after reading some of the comments. You raise some legitimate points, I realize that there is a subtle malthusian element to this chart and some of you feel like a burden already. Furthermore, you raise a good point about corporate pollution, oil companies, and how their footprint is much greater than average plebs like us.
That’s 100% valid and I don’t disagree with you at all. My “compromise” I guess would be that continue to apply pressure and protest against large corporations, but in terms of ourselves, just pick a few things you can cut down on yourself, it does not have to be everything on this list.
For example, I really prefer having animal products in my diet, but I am willing to live in a small apartment , car-free, and not go on vacation much in my adulthood. In the same way, you guys can pick what you are comfortable with in reducing and what you do not want to compromise on.
All of us have different standards of living and we are flexible on some things, and some things we are not flexible. That is alright, just consider changing what you are comfortable with, but please do not think you are a burden. Your presence and your life is valuable to me. I don’t like to demoralize people.
I find it hard to believe such graphics and because it’s annual I think it’s quite misleading. Replacing lightbulbs has a low impact, but they will last years. During that time it will have the same impact as if you switch to a plant-based diet for a year. Some items are one-time investments that will have a lasting effect while others are everyday struggles with comparatively low effects related to the effort required. Furthermore, this creates a feeling that some actions are nearly meaningless. Some may say I am childless so I can fly 3 times a year and have a lower impact than this family with two kids.
They are.
There’s very good reason that private jets for example aren’t on there, never mind the industrial stuff - they would make the points we see here completely invisible by comparison.
both would have insignificant impact in the grand scheme of things.
This is just more shifting responsibility to those who aren’t by those who are, to ensure they can continue undisturbed.
You cannot just put aside your personal responsibility just by pointing a finger at someone who’s causing more pollution.
Yes, private jets are very bad and should be banned. Yes, corporations are major players in pollution and should be heavily regulated. Yes, there is a ton of rich people each causing more pollution than entire cities.
Meanwhile, I can still try to introduce more vegetarian meals to my diet.
Why? If we eliminate fossil fuels, private automobiles for commuting, and densify our population then anyone who wants to eat meat can without issue.
Oh, I didn’t realize that fossil fuels can be eliminated that easily! Silly me.
Again - solely in service of your own ego, they still killed the same amount of animals that day.
It’s how capitalism works, they’re happy to throw the dead animals away, you’ve still spent your money in their supermarkets (which is perfectly fine, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism because they’ve given you no choice), and haven’t made a dent to the actual problem or moved even a nanometre closer to solving it.
Aside from large cost investment ones (vehicle) or giving up a vehicle, none of these are really difficult.
Also if you actively decide to not have a child so you can fly 3 times a year, that’s still technically a better choice. Hell even if you don’t actively decide, it’s still better. The point is to try and do as well as you can. And then vote and fight to get regulations put in place on companies who are responsible for a hell of a lot more.
Of course, one should do as much as they can and mainly vote and push the government for regulation. I just don’t think, that this infographic does a good job of communicating the information. You should recycle regardless of the impact size compared to not having a child.
If you look at it as something that can be used as propaganda all it seems to accomplish is shifting the blame to families with multiple kids and low-income households that cannot buy electric cars.
except like 90% of recycling just goes in to landfill anyway.
And even if it didn’t, your personal waste would be dwarfed on comparison to the industrial pollution corporations and militaries produce.
But hey, keeping you recycling and feeling like you’ve done your part is a great way to make sure you don’t take aim at the root of the problem and those causing it.
Yes, my personal waste is dwarfed by waste of large organization…
Yes, the solution is in regulations and criminalization of polution by corporation.
But you should still recycle.
lol, no.
The solution is in abolishing capitalism and building a sustainable society that isn’t built on exploitation and oppression as well as the rape of the planet.
If you really want to, but you’re only serving your own ego, no one else, and definitely not the environment (because in the time you spend recycling, not to mention the time patting yourself on the back, and then the feeling like you’ve done your part so you don’t have to take any more action, the corporations running the plant let out another hundreds of times more pollution than you could ever recycle).
But hey, you get to tell yourself you helped, and that’s what really matters, right?
E: and just to be clear because I know how people love missing the point:
I’m not advocating you litter or pollute or make things deliberately worse, I am saying - spend your time doing something effective (fight capitalism, not its symptoms, build solidarity and community in whatever way you can and is beneficial locally) instead of wasting it to serve no real purpose.
From now on, I will spend the 2.5 seconds that it takes me to recycle on dismantling capitalism.
Overpopulation is a climate issue and I would argue the mindset of trying to promote owns legacy by having more than one, let alone more than two children is definitely something that needs to be addressed. The climate impact is real. You can’t just be like “I deserve to spread my seed as far as I can.”
Knowing the cost of something is important and having children does have an impact on everyone else.
Just to back up comrade @commie, let me copy pasta myself:
From your own sources.
Edit: it’s kind of weird your source for “it’s a myth” is an article saying it’s not but that talking about it just leads a bunch of people to the wrong conclusions about the speaker due to poor past examples.
Don’t simp for industry propaganda.
Wow. I immediately assume a lower IQ for anyone who uses that word.
Even if industry changed, no, meat production should still go away. It’s still bad. There’s no acceptable level of bad we should just ignore. This is discounting the entire ethical points of animal cruelty inherent in the system.
I didn’t say we should not fight for better regulation. I did say we shouldn’t give up doing our best. If you disagree with this, you’re just arguing you shouldn’t be held responsible for anything. With that attitude, why would you expect a company to not say the same especially if it’ll cost them so much more. You’re depicted exactly everything wrong with the industry.
No one is forcing you to eat meat, it’s fine. Billions of people have no issue with it, and also think your definition of animal cruelty is wrong. However your morals are your own, and it isn’t a lack of personal morality that is causing climate change. On the other hand if industry is forced to change, which is what I’m advocating for, there is nothing further that needs to be done. I’m not asking them to change, I’m not expecting them to change, I want government to force them to change, I want them to go out of business if the only way they can stay in business is by destroying the environment with fossil fuels.
Sorry, I guess we just disagree on whether torture and killing is cruel. You think it’s not. I do. More people think so every year, so I’m just glad as humanity as a whole continues to advance and not stay within primitive ways of thinking. Moreover, the amount of land being dedicated to it is so vast, that eventually it’ll have to give simply because there are so much better ways to use the land. Regardless, something that’s bad for the environment now is bad for the environment always. That’s how that works. You haven’t provided any reasoning why it suddenly becomes isn’t. Your argument is still that you’re ok with harming the environment a little.
And things like racism, sexism, etc are all personal morals. Saying to keep it to yourself while you have your own is simply not an argument. It’s a value judgement on another living thing. I’m not here to hear all the debunked and poor logic though, so I’m not really interested in debate and won’t respond again. Not saying you can’t provide your response, its just I won’t care.
I also didn’t say agriculture isn’t bad for the environment. Not all things are equally bad for the environment, and another misdirection caused by campaigns that put the blame of climate change on the individual is that you eventually realize that by simply existing YOU are bad for the environment. So now you feel guilty for existing and enjoying life. But the purpose of life isn’t to live in the dark and eat bugs for the environment.
The environment is hearty, we can do most of our human activity in moderation and the environment will bear it. We can eat meat, we can use air travel, we can have electricity in our homes. We can also do without personal automobiles, without single use plastics, without buying a new consumer electronic every year. As a society we don’t have to pursue ever increasing profit for the 1%. We don’t have to accept massive wealth inequality and we do not have to subsidize Fossil Fuels trillions of dollars a year, nor do we need to do everything as cheaply as possible, and damn the consequences.