Ask Lemmy

CO2 seems to be the main problem, so why don't we just burn it. Powerstations powered by burning CO2 would be good for the atmosphere while providing heat and power for communities. And CO2 is abundant so it should be cheap, too!

Adopt. Don't make new people. Take in people who have been abandoned. My father had the same idea in the 1970s — I suppose I should be fortunate my mother overruled him on that one. But he had the idea almost 50 years ago, for similar reasons.

And apply a similar philosophy to the rest of your life. We all know the word recycle. And I have been a proponent of recycling for over 30 years. I've heard it doesn't help. I've heard some municipalities take it all to the same place. I don't care. I still do it. But I also remember when there were three words. The original slogan went "Reduce. Reuse. Recycle." Many people forgot the first two. You can reuse and repurpose a lot of things. But you should also reduce consumption as well. Eat less processed food. Stick to protein — plant and animal (unless you're a vegetarian/vegan obviously). Stick to the outside of the grocery store (produce, dairy, deli, meat). Bakery is nice for an occasional treat, but find out what they make in-house and not ship in frozen.

I don't think I'm doing enough on my own. I also don't have illusions I'll convince many others. I'm not really trying to. I'm not trying to save the world, just survive it.

I'm doing my part by not having children.

If there's no humans there cannot be pollution.

I think it's too late. But theoretically speaking, it would require totalitarian measures because people will not willingly choose degrowth and a significant decrease to their standard of living. People will not choose "less."

You would also have to get all nations across the globe to magically work together. The reason is that those who limit themselves based on sustainability will be outcompeted by those who don't impose such limitations. To use an example that is relevant to the present: as much hand-wringing as there is about AI and its various hazards (environmental and otherwise), simply "not doing" AI isn't really an option so long as other parts of the world are going for it. Opting out of an arms race can put you at a severe disadvantage.

Human nature is really working against us.

I don't think there's any hope of addressing climate change as long as Europe and the USA adhere to a capitalist economic system.

The simple fact is, we buy what's available on the market. If we want to phase out fossil fuels...the government needs to step in and ban using them. Then, car companies will all be forced to switch to cleaner alternatives, and that's what consumers will start buying.

This goes for every single product on the market. Regulate the shit out of it, and the market will shift. But if you leave it up to the market to decide...it will always choose the cheapest, most profitable option.

We, as consumers, have almost no say in the matter. We buy what we need, based on the available options.

Encourage decentralisation and self-sufficiency. Produce and consume more locally. I think residential solar is a good start, as it may lead to reduction in overseas shipping for LNG, oil and coal. Small farms and workshops for daily necessities or repairs will further reduce need for commercial transportation. Work from home or encouraging local offices instead of corporate campuses will spread the population, make local businesses more viable, and reduce personal transportation.

All these encouragements should be done via tax credits or subsidies, so vote for parties who'd deliver those.

Die off.

Not possible. In order to be effective we need a global generational commitment that is beyond our current capacity for cooperation.

China, US, India, Russia. 1, 2, 3, 4. Guess who is least likely to take part in a global agreement?

Russia and China signed on to the Paris agreement, but largely ignore it. Trump famously pulled the US out of the agreement. Twice.

India has been making the right noises about hitting goals by 2030, but I'm not sure how they're actually progressing, not that it means much without Russia, China and the US.

We need an agreement that commits our people not just now, but for multiple generations into the future without regard to who the individual rulers of the countries are. Won't happen.

For collective action, vote. Let yourself be known.

For individual action...I personally dont think we will get our collective shit together. So moving to an area that will not experience or have very little experience in climate change is the goal. This might not be possible for a lot of people. But it is for a number of people. So those will do well generations from now. My ancestors moved to get a better life. That is what will be done again.

We get our strongest guy and they get their strongest guy and we end it with single combat. Winner takes all, no do-overs, no mulligans, one alternate for each side, and the weapons and location will be decided by a board of neutral parties in coordination with each side's coach, contender, and any other relevant staff.

Locally with your community. None of these governments are prepared to bite the corporate tit that feeds them.

• heavily tariff companies that attempt to move their companies or operations overseas
• nationalize the biggest environmental offenders
• any company that resists is investigated and charged with crimes against humanity and their company is nationalized
• once tried, executives are imprisoned or executed to set an example
• tax the wealthy with an 80% flat tax, use the income to subsidize impacted industry/workers while also investing in green or net-zero environmental companies

edit: just to add, this would be the less aggressive solution I would want to see. the more aggressive solution would have blood running in the streets of every executive of a fortune 500 company that has negligently damaged the environment and harmed workers rights/safety.

the economic turmoil would be harsh and would take decades to crawl out of, but we could do it. nobody crawls when we're dead on a dying planet.

Move to renewable energy. We have the necessary capacity, just keep installing renewable sources and phasing out the rest. Keep nuclear plants operational as long as they're safe, too, but don't waste too much resources building new ones.

Keep on moving electric storage from lithium ion to pumped hydro/sodium ion/other technologies depending on scale. Leave lithium ion for portable electronics and specialized cases only.

Develop better public transit networks, ideally make it free like in some cities. Also, make bicycle lanes mandatory for new neighborhoods, and convert old roads to have bicycle lanes whenever possible. With that, you won't need to ban cars as they'll grow less relevant (although you can increase tax on car sales to raise money and further disincentivise car ownership).

Also, develop high-speed rail whenever it makes sense, as an organic and much more ecological replacement for planes. Make sure they are modular enough to scale for demand, to avoid dragging extra.

Plant more trees and algae to help scrub the extra CO2. Intensify marine plastic collection efforts to assist the natural growth of marine ecosystems.

Ban petroleum-based plastics whenever possible. For most applications, there are more friendly biologically produced options; they are fairly cheap, too, it's just that regular plastic is even cheaper.

Extend reduce-reuse-recycle. Make more places serve into your own tare, make use (on a personal level) of what you normally throw away, and for what you do throw away, make sure it gets into recycling. Get creative! For example, did you know some used plastic bottles can be turned into a 3D printer filament? You can go wherever from there!

Reduce beef production/import and consumption. For what you do consume, make sure it comes from milk breeds, because otherwise you don't share the ecological footprint with the dairy, which skyrockets the footprint of a steak. In any case, beef is the single most terrible food source in terms of ecological footprint, being several times worse than pork, poultry and dozens to hundreds times worse than plant foods.

Oh, and the AI centers currently in construction by tech giants are becoming one extra major point of concern. We should review which of these are actually necessary, because this thing doesn't seem to stop scaling up, with some planned centers consuming as much energy as a major city.

Invest in nuclear energy. Invest in R&D to make energy storage for renewables cheaper at scale.

There were a lot of comments hallucinating about humanity coming together and cooperating towards lowering emissions. We can't. It's better to think of solutions that could work in practice.

I'm a gardener, and focus first and foremost on building soil, through composting and using aerated compost teas. I plant and maintain areas that are supportive of wild pollinators. I ride my bike or walk to most places I need to go. And I drive an EV, which is mostly powered from the solar panels on my roof. Yes, this was a significant expense to do so. I eat a diet that is primarily vegetarian. I've been doing all of these things and more for most of my life.

Weatherproof bunkers connected by tunnels