this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
922 points (94.2% liked)

The memes of the climate

1649 readers
54 users here now

The climate of the memes of the climate!

Planet is on fire!

mod notice: do not hesitate to report abusive comments, I am not always here.

rules:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 55 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The only technology that should be on that list, since using it would enable all the others to thrive: UwU hungry guillotine

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (9 children)

It hungers for the blood of the investors

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 41 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (9 children)

We have the technologies. The list goes on and on and on. We just need to employ them instead of waiting further for magical fixes.

Posting and liking memes is great, but real change comes from actions. If you are as concerned as we are about climate change, please consider joining or supporting climate activists near you.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 8 months ago (4 children)

We don't need new technologies to overcome the issue of global warming itself; we need them to overcome the issue of human nature. People (in the population level sense, not individually) are not good at long term thinking. Solving global warming with current technologies will require a change in lifestyle from just about everyone. It's the kind of change that will have no perceivable reward to most people. That's why a lot of those solutions like biking, veganism, etc, will never catch on.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

We have seen, that people and societies are extremely adaptable to changes in lifestyle. The transformation of the Netherlands to a cycling -friendly country for example. Car free city centers. People were very opposed to them before. But once the changes were made, people were happy with them and adapted to the new options. There's also negative examples where people adapted to new negative lifestyles such as car centric cities. Or smog, pollution, garbage landfills, or rivers that one is not allowed to swim in due to pollution. People are surprisingly adaptable to new conditions. We just have to do it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago (8 children)

I am vegan btw but the amount of people who say apathetic shit like 'one person can't make a difference, it's all the corporations fault, wah' is honestly depressing. We get the society we ask for and until people start asking for something different nothing changes.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

I have a super mixed reaction here. On one hand, it's a good attitude as an individual to do what you can. OTOH, is it apathetic to realize that one billionaire's private jet adds more pollution than a thousand vegans can offset by being parsimonious with their consumption?

To keep a livable Earth, we need high-level systemic change to move the needle on that dial, not just a few thousand people making extreme sacrifices (tradeoffs? I shouldn't talk about being vegan as a sacrifice, lol) in lifestyle.

Edit: I'm thinking partly of celebrities booking commercial flights instead of flying private jets, but I'm also thinking about multinational corporations doing stupid things. CVS printing mile-long receipts, Amazon (or others) shipping tiny things in ginormous boxes, or hey, the expectation that every product on a retail shelf must be shrink-wrapped.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 8 months ago (25 children)

Only way to stop climate change is to STOP CONSUMING SO MUCH

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Best way to stop consuming is to stop having children

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)

mhh. nope.

Best way to reduce consumption is preventing rich people from obscene over consumption. Do you know how many average children could grow up and life a lifetime on the emissions of Tylor Swifts private jet tours? (Arbitrary example, because it has lots of attention right now. Goes for the lifestyle of most rich and super rich people)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago (6 children)

What if I told you, on the world stage, "rich person" encompasses most Americans.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I blame advertising. We should pass laws that every second ad needs to be designed to reduce the amount of shit people buy and cancel out whatever other ads are playing

load more comments (23 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 8 months ago (5 children)

"No not that! I want to do EXACTLY as I did before but YOU do something about it. Can't you like build a technology to suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere or something?"

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 8 months ago (6 children)

"We need new technologies that can be controlled by a megacorporation to make a select few rich, not things that individuals can do or use that can break the hold of existing monopolies"

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 8 months ago (10 children)

Yeah we already have the technology needed, we have to implement them.

And much of the tech is actually very old. Electric trains are like a century old. So for a lot of things, we have to re-implement technology we foolishly removed.

Oil was just a bad technology path. Gotta get back on the right path.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The technology path is fine, the adoption isn't.

Path: plastics are miracle materials. Lots of great uses for it.

Adoption: mass producing single use throwaway shit everything.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago

Long term plastic aren't as big of an issue as one time use plastics are. Wax paper and aluminum containers can both replace consumable bottles for instance.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (7 children)

Veganism isn't better for the environment than significantly reducing the total amount of consumed meat. Animals play an important, difficult-to-replace role in making agriculture sustainable. Animals can be herded on land that's difficult to farm on, animals can consume parts of farmed plants that humans cannot, and animals produce products that humans cannot replicate without significantly more work.

Edit: I see a bunch of vegans who aren't really engaging with the argument. To be clear, anyone who makes statements about how things are right now to try to disprove this is probably arguing in bad faith. I'm not responding to comments anymore because, while it's entirely possible that I'm wrong, y'all aren't making any good points.

Furthermore, I'm not anti-vegan, but now I'm tempted to be. So many people I've engaged with have displayed all of the worst vegan stereotypes I've heard about. I've always assumed it was chuds making shit up, but no I just hadn't met any of the terminally online creeps in the vegan community yet OMFG.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 8 months ago (16 children)

Yes, we need to significantly reduce the amount of consumed meat (maybe not insects, if we consider them meat). A step towards more vegan and vegetarian food would definitely be necessary. Yes, not everyone needs to be vegan. But we need to consume way more vegan and vegetarian food.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 8 months ago (14 children)

Veganism is good for climate, biodiversity, health and animal welfare. We really don't need to eat animals or animal products to have good meal and live a happy life. The good thing is that humans are omnivores, with a free choice of what to eat. Please choose wisely, not only for your own mental and physical health, but also for others, living now as well as in years to come.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago (9 children)

I don't really care. Abusing (using) animals for food and work is cruel anyway, if me not doing that because I think it's wrong is good for the environment, great! If it's not, fine, but it's not why I do it.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 8 months ago (2 children)

That's the thing. Ethics and impact on the environment can be two different things. If you decide to go that way, you're fine. Do it. However we need animals for stated reasons. We have to eat less meat/generally consume less animal products.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 8 months ago (10 children)

We also need to stop overproducing everything. America makes far too much corn, because/and the industry is heavily subsidized.

The amount of food waste in North America is astounding. Completely unnecessary.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (11 children)

We don't need animals to consume plants we can't, because plant food is soooo goddamn more efficient on every metric. We can drastically reduce land, water and energy usage AND still feed way more people with plant foods. We simply do not need to eat animals.

Any form of "sustainable" animal farming I've read up on end up being still less resource efficient than plant foods, AND obviously massively reduced output. So we're truly talking about vegan vs. an ounce of meat a week. That's not a difference worth defending, considering the other obvious ethical issues.

Finally, why do you feel that it's important to argue for "99%" veganism? Do you genuinely believe people don't understand that less is better, but none is best? Do you apply the same argument to other ethical issues, like feminism? Being 99% feminist is a big improvement, but constantly arguing for it in favor of feminism (aka 100%) would obviously look ridiculous. Finally, don't you realize the humongous difference between "we should abuse animals for our pleasure less" vs. "we shouldn't do that"? A whole class of racism disappears if we get rid of the association between "animal" and "lesser moral consideration".

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You forgot, Work from Home.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago

I already have a second hand and telling people to grow a second hand just feels ableist to those who can't. /j

[–] [email protected] 18 points 8 months ago (25 children)

nuclear power should definitely be one of those technologies listed

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago

The Problem with nuclear Power is, that there isn't a guarantee for reasonable pricing. There simply isn't any experience on how much it really costs to build new power plants.

If you want to take a deeper look into the topic: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/05/what-does-nuclear-power-really-cost/

load more comments (24 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago (5 children)

20 years ago a few key technologies were still missing, like grid storage battery technology. But there are multiple promising ways now. Unfortunately lack of massive funding for research and development and patents means we'll have to wait another 20 years to produce them really cheaply on the free market. Otherwise it would be unfair to the poor inventor! /s

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago (1 children)

To be fair, a lot of the new technologies people talk about regarding this are some of these things, but improved. For instance, better batteries or solar cells, recent improvement to which has already had a pretty notable impact (for instance, better solar panels making solar energy cheaper, which makes even entities concerned only with profit more likely to adopt it.)

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Usually it's just an excuse to do nothing, hoping for a magical technology that saves us from all our problems

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The biggest technology needed is actually excavators so we can dig ditches everywhere to soak up rain water and refill aquifers. Also building retaining walls, terraces and swales using permaculture style water management to reforest degraded grazing lands.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago (5 children)

I think we need those excavators do dig our own graves, because this will probably not happen.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago
load more comments
view more: next ›