Who is responsible for fixing climate change? feat.

[@ClimateAdam]

Woop - we made 2 whole vids without either of us leaving our respective continents (or meeting face to face)! Check out the vid on my channel here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hX3Imph7mLGJr7M Thanks so much for having me on, Miriam! Looking forward to hearing what combo of structural & individual action everyone takes in their fight against climate change.

[@OurChangingClimate]

Woah this was awesome!! Thank you so much for taking the time to make this :)

[@DavidRN85]

My family owns 125 acres of land, mostly woods and a little bit of prairie. We brought a biologist/ecologist in to point out invasives and how to rehab our forest. After that survey we cut down or eliminated invasives, restored some prairie and have planted close to 500 native trees and scrubs. Individual action absolutely can make a difference.

[@Northcountry1926]

Running Trauma Wow ! Well Done ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

[@KatrinaEames]

So I think about this a lot through the lens of my experiences as being poor in rural and urban settings. Because although a lot of the challenges of poverty remain the same regardless of where you are, I have more options in the city. The city I live in is pretty walkable, and although the public transportation leaves something to be desired, it is fairly dependable and my husband and I live and work in parts of the city that allow our daily commutes to be free. If I had continued to live in a rural area through adulthood, or even through part of high school, I would probably have learned how to drive and would have a car out of necessity. The infrastructure of the city allows me to choose not to invest in a car because it is too expensive, but I didn't really make that choice it was just a matter of circumstances.

[@bundleofperceptions1397]

Is there a reason you are sharing this story?

[@zentouro]

@@bundleofperceptions1397 I asked for people to share their perspectives! Katrina is more than welcome to share stories in my comment section.

[@heychrisfox]

Finally got to watching this! I've always existed between these two. I'm not sure which method is better. I wish structural changes could be made, but it really seems every time we take a step forward, we take a step back, and not a lot of progress is made, so it's really demoralizing. Meanwhile, as you said, I am inhibited from a lot of individual action. I love to ride my bike, but I live in Texas where public transport sucks, cars are mandatory, and even though my city likes for people to ride, it's SUPER dangerous to do so. That's just one of a million different little issues, and trying to balance what's best for the planet and what I can actually accomplish given my highly limited income and situation is dizzying at best. That's why I tend to settle on the middle ground. I went vegetarian something like ten years ago, when doing so in Texas was basically heresy. Now you're not trendy or cool if you don't drop by the local vegan shop, or if you're not conscious about consuming locally. While I can't say that I made epic cultural changes, I just committed to something that I was able to do, that was very useful, and that nobody around me was doing, and just educated people about it as slowly and friendly as possible. It helped me feel apart of something bigger, and even if I had no impact on the larger cultural zeitgeist that formed around vegetarianism/veganism, anecdotally, I can name 30+ people in and around my personal communities who I either convinced try out vegetarianism, play around with Meatless Mondays or being pescetarian, or who went even further than me by going vegan after me introducing them to the ideas. That may not be a lot, but it's not nothing.

[@clockworkkirlia7475]

I like the idea of using personal action to help foster proper structural changes. Both is good, and doing both *at the same time* is best. This can include market forces stuff like Adam was saying, but also loudly setting good examples (without loudly getting judgy because, primarily, that doesn't seem to work). I'll try to think of more.

[@jaymiiknierum4014]

The way I see it is there is you can only do individual action. Voting is an individual action. 1 vote alone can’t change anything but yet it’s so important. Going to a protest is an individual action. Not everyone can attend a big protest but if I find myself in a place that allows me to attend I do. By myself that protest isn’t much. But together if creates change. Bringing your own containers may not seem like a big action but may start a conversation and change the systems of the stall holder at your local market. As long as you acknowledge that we are all working in a system that affects all of us disproportionately and make choices that assist it making the system fairer and better for everyone including the planet then it matters. Systematic change is the result of a number of individual actions. Everyone has different amount of influence of different systems. There will always be people who hold more individual power over changing systems. And that can suck. But no 1 person can change the whole system. You can only do what you are capable of today. That might be contacting your local government. Tomorrow you might only be able to bring your own bags. The next day it might be changing your family’s waste management system. Or supporting a non profit. Or devesting. Bringing my own bags won’t solve the climate crisis. But everyone has to start somewhere and it fuels me to make further changes and take more action. And every time I use them and it sparks a conversation with someone I hope it helps fuel their journey too. Understanding climate change and our impact is an ongoing process and includes many different phases and will look different for everyone. Do whatever you can with the resources you have. You can’t compare yourself to the efforts of others. Thanks for taking your time to read this if you made it this far!

[@marksolano2348]

I had to watch this video for a class I'm taking but I really enjoyed it.

[@zentouro]

Thanks! Can I ask what the class is about?

[@thebugbear]

Great video, and great channel! Personally, I often feel guilty because while I do mostly not eat meat and use the bike to get to college a lot, all of those take effort and I just get so tired and let myself Lyft back home after a long day at college, or let myself buy the chicken sandwich because it just looks so much more appetizing. I'd be curious to see a video from you on how to stay strong in your convictions even when tired and having a bad day.

[@zentouro]

thanks! i'll have to think on that video idea because i'm not sure i have a good answer! some of my convictions were definitely developed in unhealthy ways which i do not want to encourage. though i will say, the fact that this is something you consider and think about in your day to day is already a huge step and incredibly important.

[@thebugbear]

@@zentouro thank you :) I do think considering stuff like this is already important but I get annoyed at the "feeling guilty but not doing anything" situation. It somehow feels very white middle class to me.

[@zentouro]

​@@thebugbear thats fair - and probably is. though as I do more research into environmental psychology - guilt isn't a great motivating factor and doesn't lead to long-lasting changes. so reframing your desire to have a positive impact on the environment and climate that isn't based on 'being a bad person/being guilty' might help you find renewed purpose in some of your actions.

[@theallseeinghat9484]

@@zentouro dropping in on this convo to say that I think what u just said is a GREAT idea for a video. Re-contenxtualizing guilt for the environment into an active desire to help is something I hadn’t really considered until now, and is something I think a lot lot LOT of people need to hear

[@emterroso]

I think legislation and international agreements are probably the only ways to make significant change, but I also try to do the little I can to reduce my emissions. I'm vegetarian (practically vegan now), I avoid buying things or replacing things that are still usable, I don't own a car... But one big thing I find hard to avoid sometimes is flying. When possible, I prefer trains, but that's not always an option. I looked into some carbon compensation services, but I don't know if they really work or if I'd be just paying a lot of money to feel better about myself, while actually doing a lot of harm. Does anyone know about that?

[@darkforestcinema]

Great video, thanks. -Sage

[@diegoaliaga4435]

yo creo usar el transporte publico es la mejor opción, en la ciudad donde vivo se están realizando varias reformas del transporte hace unos 10 años,aunque en muchos casos es deficiente, es mejor que el privado porque ahorras más tiempo y dinero, en cuanto a las acciones individuales,es cierto que cuanto mas poder adquisitivo se tiene las personas suelen a generar mas gasto de los recursos naturales, y con las empresas si bien es cierto en latinoamerica desde hace unos años se van implementando medidas para disminuir los gases que contaminan a los humanos , poco se menciona o se toman en cuenta los gases de efecto invernadero, como difundir la idea de que el gas metano es lo mejor y que no contamina, idea no tan cierta del todo ,sinceramente el tema ambiental es un tema muy hablado por las empresas,pero en su mayoría es por beneficio económico y no por disminuir los efectos del efecto invernadero,creo que el día que todas las empresas se vean afectadas por fenómenos extremos recién tomaran un cambio en su conducta,solo espero que ese día no sea ya demasiado tarde

[@zentouro]

thank you for your thoughtful comment and perspective :)

[@jonathanmantello3974]

On the topic of reducing personal emissions, I think that studying how to live sustainably on a personal level is extremely valuable. If we can figure out how to live sustainably on a personal level (and especially on a community level), then we have a working model that can be expanded. One seriously huge tool of sustainable living is permaculture, which uses simple rainwater harvesting techniques to create forests, food abundance, and microclimates.

[@TheConfettiDress]

I learned so much from this! Especially never thought about replacing parts to phones and such. There’s so much to unpack. I’m in school to be a climate scientist so I’m loving your and Climate Adam’s channels. Thank you both for the work and effort you put in these videos!

[@faizanwar7107]

A great applause to both you, you are sharing information on CC which really important to do in these times.

[@TheWillieSun]

Like you, I fall somewhere between the lines. I want structural change from divestment to big beauty companies stop putting nano plastics into cosmetics etc. but I also practice or try to practice individual changes. Perfection is the goal we will never attain.

[@ClimateAdam]

But (at least the way I see it!) a life taking of taking steps in the right direction is a good life to lead.

[@TheWillieSun]

@@ClimateAdam True. Doing something is always better than doing nothing.

[@Northcountry1926]

Well done, hope you’ll consider doing another vid or series together ... Great to see the two approaches you each bring forth ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

[@mariakaraboeva2908]

Thank you!!💚💚

[@TheLetterFifteen]

Great video! Really appreciated hearing both of your perspectives on the topic.

[@Cobropta]

Great info! I subscribed! I got here from Our Changing Climate. :)

[@zentouro]

thank you! and welcome!

[@thearchitecturegirl]

Switching bank to one that doesn’t invest in fossil fuels is another thing to do! Also writing to your pension provider to have them divest. Money is doing all sorts of potentially awful things, when you think it’s just sitting in a bank.

[@zentouro]

definitely!

[@ClimateAdam]

For sure! I found out my pension provider only has an 'ethical fund' that still invests in fossil fuels, *or* a green fund that still invests in Arms, alcohol, etc.. Ffs why not both!

[@Brunoportes]

You and Adam are great! And I agree with you, there is a limit to how far our individual actions can change something. They can pressure companies to reduce their carbon footprint, to make more durable or repairable items, etc. But there is a lot there can only be done by politcy. Here in Brazil, for exemple, the biggest emission comes from ilegal defllorestation and fires to open space for agriculture, wich is our biggest commodity. Carbon emission is tied to our economical development, and our social and political structures that insist on mantaining It. So yes, individual actions have their role in stopping climate change, but the political debate has to come along with it.

[@zentouro]

thank you so much for this comment and your perspective. out of curiosity, are you involved in any of the climate/environmental-focused groups in Brazil? I'd love to learn more about the politics there, but I'd prefer a more hyper-local perspective than just the big new stories that are easily discovered here in the states.

[@Brunoportes]

@@zentouro I'm not in any focus group on climate change, I'm a researcher in urban and rural planning. But I can give an overview of the problem: the Brazilian economy for decades has as its main engine the export of agricultural commodities, especially soy and meat. This economy is centered on groups and families that hold most of the Brazilian lands, inherited since when Brazil was a colony of Portugal. These families have a lot of political power and make up a parliamentary group allied to the gun industry, religious groups and some industrial sectors, all with a lot of local influence, especially in rural areas. To expand agricultural areas, landowners associate with clandestine loggers to cut down (and sell) parts of the Amazon forest, burn the remaining trees, and enter livestock to legitimize land ownership. In recent years, these groups have become even more powerful, with changes in property laws that facilitate this type of deforestation associated with agricultural production and with the new president, is even worse. More areas are being deforested, indigenous people are suffering more attacks and there is a lot of propaganda that tries to pass a positive image of this to gain support of the population. But the political debate here is só centered on the president's scandals that we rarely hear about climate change. If you want to know more, there is a good onganization here called De olho nos ruralistas, that watch the political movements of these groups. I think they have a KZbin Channel too. Sorry for the big post XD

[@zentouro]

@@Brunoportes Thank you so much for this info! I'll have to take a look into that organization.

[@JamesGreenHere]

Many thanks @zentouro and @Climate-adam for this extended, yet still so brief, video. This is helping me to suss out some of the either/or dilemmas I have around this. I generally find my thoughts are focused on trying to imagine the necessary systemic changes, which lead to tremendous overwhelm; and so take refuge in the personal choices I make. Appreciate in particular the focus given to privilege, in being able to make/ have enough resources and time to consider the impacts of these choices. As well for the frank and silly approaches you bring to it. Makes for a good comedic duo dynamic. Would love to see more of that, from you all and in general. Are there particular orgs (im in the US, Bay Area, but would be interested in learning about any) that you find have a strong analysis and/or base of support that I might contribute to? Especially in terms of affecting policy? Saw the link above for Citizens Climate Lobby, and will def be looking into that. Best to you both. I'll be seeing you.

[@zentouro]

Hi James! Thanks for your comment. I'm glad the video helped you in some ways. As for Bay area orgs - there is likely a sunrise hub (www.sunrisemovement.org/) or several in your area. CCL is also definitely a great place to start. I'm not super familiar with it, but the California Environmental Justice Alliance might be a good place to check out as well. I'm not super key-ed into the local happenings in your area, but a way I became a bit more involved in my local community was by following city-level politicians on twitter and seeing where they went to speak - and at those events I learned about so many hyper-local NYC orgs. Google can be helpful as well, but not every local org has an easily searchable website unfortunately!

[@excrubulent]

A lot of people talk about how making personal consumptive choices is a privilege because it costs more, both in money and in other resources like time, and mental and emotional energy. What I don't see talked about is the broader implications of the fact that it is a privilege. Because it costs more and a lot of people can't or are not inclined to make those changes, that means most people won't do it, so society as a whole won't make those changes. You can't use the market to solve a problem that the market created. These externalities always appear because the market always optimises for money, so humanity, nature, culture, and everything else good that you can think of, loses out in the long run.

[@seanh2785]

Thank you so much for the excellent and informative video!!

[@user-zp5vt1tu6b]

I think we should push for getting autonomous vehicles on the road asap. Less vehicles on the road in total, no traffic, less deaths, no longer own a vehicle, just subscription like Netflix and a vehicle that suits your needs for that moment comes to you. This would be great for the environment.

[@zentouro]

im curious if autonomous vehicles would actually lead to fewer vehicles on the road. perhaps fewer vehicles owned, but i worry the miles driven might increase (i remember reading a while back about how ride-sharing services have increased miles driven in recent years). there are certainly many benefits of autonomous vehicles (especially if they run electric) but i'm not sold on their environmental practicality.

[@ClimateAdam]

I actually made a video a little while back on a paper that suggested driverless taxis could massively reduce emissions! kzbin.info/www/bejne/n5bdhqCshbp3fdk Still.. I'd personally prefer public transport is prioritised. We know for sure that works!

[@kimwelch4652]

Freewill is fundamental to reality. In information theory terms it is unpredictability as expressed in information entropy. It is the “meaningful” part of any message even if that message is just the information exchanging inherent in the interaction between subatomic particles. The essence of freewill is choice. When you make a choice, you inject unpredictability into reality and increase the level of information entropy, meaning, and possibly space-time entanglement. So, yes, what you choose to do or not do makes a difference in reality. It may still not save us all from extinction, but it does make a difference which can have a wider acausal influence.

[@categorille8330]

i just discovered your channel. Thank you so much for the videos. We need more ecologists on youtube and you and adam seem to be doing that very very well. Hugs

[@JadeDRail]

I LOVE buying second hand. I don't get anything new unless I have to.

[@Wookey.]

Right to repair is even more important for large expensive things like cars and tractors than the small electronic items you mention. The main problem there is a wierd attitude to software - we had laws for decades saying we can replace physical parts, like brakes and exhausts, and suspension, so long as they are equivalent/fit for purpose. But as soon as there is software in a vehicle suddenly that's a part only the manufacturer can touch and it would be 'unsafe' to change. This distinction makes no sense, makes repair and improvements extremely difficult, and allows manufacturers to retain very strong corporate control. Fortunately farmers, car owners and free software people are all on the same side in this, so there is some slow progress. 'Right to repair' is the correct way to frame it, as it applies to all parts.

[@SK-cb6wz]

Thank you very much for making this video.

[@ianrbuck]

I of course try to make a difference as an individual, but because I know that large corporations have an outsized effect, I do as much as I can to support the ones that are being ecologically responsible.

[@j.b.5422]

I talked to my grandmother about not wanting to go on an international vacation, but she only points out that my father is going on even more vacations than her... and that it would be kinda dumb to wear your clothes until they fall apart And I as a kid was unfortunately very successful at dodging vegetables, so getting into eating less meat is going to be insanely difficult. And I've started feeling like those "fun is evil!" preachers are right for the wrong reasons. So if I started becoming an activist, I'd be counterproductive, wouldn't I?

[@redddbaron]

I saw the video effort with Mike, but there is the flaw regarding meat eating. The rest of vid is awesome. So probably this lifestyle recommendation would help if you followed your own advice in this vid, both systematic and individual. For example, it's the feedlot system that makes red meat an emissions source. Properly raised grassfed beef is a significant carbon sink. So as an individual we stop eating feedlot beef, and start eating pasture raised. This will allow the grassfed business model to out compete the feedlot business model, and thus create systemic change.

[@zentouro]

with mike? to who are you referring? and you're going to need to define "properly raised grass-fed beef" as much of the "grass-fed" beef marketed in the states produces more emissions per lb of meat than feedlots

[@redddbaron]

@@zentouro Sorry, I meant Climate Adam. I originally was debating a different Mike, who used Adams video as a reference. My mistake. And as for emissions, that is just a myth from the merchants of doubt designed to obfuscate the issue of how food is raised. The only emissions that matter are net emissions, as every climate scientist will tell you, and feedlot beef is a rather large emissions source, and the feed production system that supplies the feedlots are also emissions sources. So the net is a very large source. However, a properly managed grassland is a net sink for both CO2 and CH4, even including all the decay, insects, and yes, even ruminants. We can measure this sink scientifically well established protocols and there is empirical evidence. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880911000934 I wrote more about it and other climate smart agricultural methods for all sorts of crops here: Can We Reverse Global Warming? qr.ae/TUhCyq I do provide plenty of citations and discuss whole food systems too!

[@zentouro]

@@redddbaron You're talking past me a bit here - I asked you to define "properly managed grass-fed beef." As my understanding of current research indicates that there is little if any large-scale beef production that results in a none or negative net carbon emissions. Similarly - the paper you linked to here does not discuss the net emissions of livestock raising and I am well aware that grasslands act as carbon sinks. There are of course ways to make beef production less of a GHG emitter like silvopastoral systems or changing the cattle genetics/diets (sources: bft.cirad.fr/cd/BFT_316_3-16.pdf, www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/pmc/articles/PMC3691002/) My statement about feedlot v grass-fed is informed by studies like this (www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/2/2/127). The GHG (particularly methane) emissions are lower in feedlot scenarios b/c a. the cattle comes to weight faster, b. the cattle die sooner (related to a) and therefore spends less time burping c. the food requires less land and c. feedlot beef is bad for a number of other reasons (local environmental pollution, food quality, anti-biotic resistance, and there are arguments about animal welfare as well), but on average it creates fewer GHG emissions than other similar scaled production methods

[@redddbaron]

@@zentouro OK First of all to understand the dynamic you have to know the industry system. And to understand that reference I gave you requires a little math. It is true that approximately 80% of pasture in the US is overgrazed and this significantly reduces the rate at which the grassland sink sequesters carbon. But there is actually a reason for this. Approximately 90% of all beef raised in the US is finished in a feedlot. This feedlot finished beef is purposely raised tall and lean on poor pasture because it gets a higher price per pound at the auction. Feedlots pay more because their income is derived by weight gain, not total weight. So a large framed but skinny cow is ideal for the feedlot to fatten and have the most change in weight. So almost all that 80% of pasture that is overgrazed is entirely due to the feedlot system. Like you clearly state, this is a systemic issue. Almost 100% of grassfed and grass finished beef is raised on properly managed pasture. This also makes sense because you can't fatten a cow up on only grass if the pasture is overstocked. And yes, there is about a 10% overlap between the two systems. Not every grassfed pasture is properly stocked and not every feedlot pasture is over stocked, but the feedlot pastures that are properly stocked are far and few between. However the citation I gave you does include significant sequestration rates of carbon, and if done on all pasture worldwide would make all animal husbandry worldwide into a net sink. But of course you'll need to actually do the math. I can't actually open your links though. They seem to be Colombia university account URLs. You'll need to provide doi and/or proper citations for me to see them. Otherwise I cant comment. But I can say this. Emissions are not what matters, otherwise even breathing would cause global warming, which is obviously a merchants of doubt myth. So check your citations and tell me the rate of soil sequestration of carbon they used to come to their conclusion, then I can comment. Oh and again, as far as Methane is concerned , the same thing again. Properly managed grasslands are net methane sinks. I have also written about methane here, also with plenty of citations: qr.ae/TUnRIA

[@zentouro]

@@redddbaron First off - I would appreciate it if you would not imply that I did not 'understand' your reference. However, apologies that my one of my links was through a proxy. Here is the doi: 10.1017/S1751731113000888 Secondly, yeah, soil sequestration of carbon is great! But I would love to see a citation on how grass-fed cattle results in net GHG emissions rather than just the rate of carbon sequestration under different pressures. Simply looking at the sequestration rates is not enough to conclude that it is possible to make all cattle farming (especially at the quantity beef is currently consumed) net zero emissions. I know there is a lot of research in this area that examines cattle farmings various impacts so there may be information I am missing - however, so far, you haven't shared anything that concludes cattle farming can be a net zero GHG emissions endeavor.

[@ItsRadishTime]

you really don't put your heat on enough for someone who believes collective>>>>individual :P

[@jingyang952]

Can you do a channel discussing whether the responsibility of climate change and related mitigation rests with developed world? Would be really interested to hear about your thoughts!

[@ianrbuck]

I had a similar thought process of biking vs public transit (monthly bus pass in the Twin Cities is $80) but I'm finding that the cost of bike upkeep when I'm riding 18km or more every day isn't that much less than bussing everywhere would have been. At least I'm getting a workout!

[@SuperTonyony]

The workers should own and control all means of production.

[@andrealb4363]

This is classic. But I don't see the dichotomy as the only way. We should rethink both sides as propelling one other. Personal change spurs small structural adjustments in time, which in turn can sway people to further change and so on. Very simply put. We should get rid of this sort of dualistic thinking. Working at all level at once is a good strategy I do think

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Great video! You guys make a good team, I hope to see more collabs in the future 😀

[@SarahKarver]

this video is so great, I love the two perspective!

[@arundhatisubhedar7163]

I feel like we can agree that capitalism is the problem.

[@zentouro]

you're not wrong

[@Caldermologist]

Ignoring all effects on climate and environment is built into the current economic model. We will never get rid of this problem unless we change this defect.

[@AllTheArtsy]

On the international, government-mandated structural versus individual actions debate, I'm very similar to you in that I fall very squarely in the first, while also practicing a lot of the tenets of the second. The problem is that the first take so long to happen, and often does benefit from the hype and voting/buying 'blackmail' generated by the second. And then sometimes I just realise that the universe is steadily decaying, nothing truly matters, and we're all going to die anyway. Heh.

[@zentouro]

hello yes i identify with that spiral into nothingness very much. this is all very hard! i wish it wasn't.

[@jamesgrover2005]

Keep up the great work everyone 💚 🙌

[@KarolaTea]

Wait local food isn't good for the climate? Obvs local AND seasonal, but like, what? Plenty things can help the environment, if not speficially for the climate. Dumping acid in the ocean is pretty bad for the wildlife there, but probably doesn't change the climate... we prolly still shouldn't do it lol. Ohhhhh, I love that phrase about perfection! I always like to see perfect as an asymptote. It's a nice direction, if you keep it mind you'll never actually reach it. Absolutely great and interesting video! :D I'd say we absolutely need both. Although possibly structural regulations might be more important, as a lot of real big numbers (like the fleet of garbage trucks) won't be changed by individual choices. Also, we'll never be able to convince everybody to care about the climate enough to completely change their life for it. And that's ok, we all have different priorities. So structural changes can help that people don't have to think about which electricity provider is the greenest, cause they're *all* 100% renewable.

[@zentouro]

I have been meaning to make a video about local food and climate but to make a very long story short in general some areas are far more efficient at growing foods and the emissions from food miles saved by buying local don't make up for the loss of efficiency.

[@zentouro]

also - the framing about perfect as an asymptote is excellent and i'm going to steal that for sure

[@KarolaTea]

That's really interesting... I've heard that local greenhouse stuff is worse than imported 'outside' crops. But would've thought that so long as you stick to whatever grows best in your region/season that's the best? Really looking forward to that video, whenever it's happening! And you're most welcome to steal the perfect asymptote ^^

[@zentouro]

@@KarolaTea its a pretty complicated conversation (hence the lack of video) b/c it isn't /always/ the case. if you feel like doing some reading, here are some of the sources i've been looking into as of late: Testing the assertion that ‘local food is best’: the challenges of an evidence-based approach www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924224408000034 (published in 2008) Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es702969f (published in 2008) Op-ed discussing why food miles aren’t a good measure and discussing differing scales of local food movement: ensia.com/voices/local-food-not-always-environmentally-sustainable/ i don't know enough to speak on them yet, but i'm also learning a lot of interesting/counter-intuitive stuff about greenhouses. so i will report back on that with more reliable info in the hopefully nearish future.

[@michaelbyrd7883]

What individuals have to make are climate friendlier options. We as people that live in the west have no choice but to have a larger footprint then people living in the global south for instance. However, now that we are aware of it, it is we that can have a smaller carbon foot print. Now the question is will we?

[@holdenrobbins852]

A wise man once said, try cleaning your own room before you try to prescribe to everyone else what they should be doing.

[@drawyrral]

If only public transport could something about the heat, and crop failures, and water pollution, and over population, and the jet stream. and the AMOC, and the mining companies, and...

[@FlaviaMaierOficial]

I think education is a central point and people don't talk enought about it nowaday, at least in the right level. I've realized that environmentalist movements are extremaly linked with some political visions and aproaches. That's ok, indeed, but as an educator I want environmentalism to reach everyone, which includes people that I'm not agree with. My country, Brazil, is into a wildely political polarization, and we can't reach just half of the population.

[@robertcallaghan4029]

World wide social constructs take 50 years without financial incentive because people in different countries differ. Everybody believes in money and love. 100% private universal carbon tax dividends takes care of money. Love takes care of individual action. Both are needed.

[@zentouro]

i wish it was that simple

[@robertcallaghan4029]

@@zentouro it is

[@zentouro]

@@robertcallaghan4029 i don't see how that could be true - if it were that easy we wouldn't be in this dilemma at all. climate change is a huge problem and is not something with a one-size fits all solution. carbon taxes do have many benefits, but there are also many fair and reasonable critiques. and the idea that 'love' will do anything is a bit naive here.

[@robertcallaghan4029]

@@zentouro *$$$ Our Stolen History $$$* In geological time, Gaia is entering menopause. It spins slower, It's getting wider around the middle, tilting and wobbling a bit, rebounding up at the poles, low on magnetic charm, drying up in the mainlands, being gouged on the coasts, and popping out in volcanoes while having severe hot flashes. Imagine a falling droplet of water pulsating and you'll get the picture. Having slept with a menopausal woman, I can tell you our rest is in trouble. I remember when laptops didn't bend. We have a fridge made in 1946, it still works. Maybe always has. The billionaires stole the missing pentagon trillions for several post-collapse billionaire bunkers underground worldwide. You will never see the 1%'s bunkers on a video screen, but not even the pentagon can spend that much on child porn. Banks stole public credit 100 years ago to fight a war on the unwhite. After the civil war, the railroad barons got rich shipping oil. The banks got super rich off railroads and oil. The banks formed a cartel in 1913 and privatized public credit. The banks funded WW1 and got rich investing in transport and arms. The banks crashed 1929. The banks funded WW2 to beat communism and depression. Propaganda is 100 years old. So is feminism and socialism. It takes 50 years to complete energy and social systems worldwide without $ incentive. Everybody is unequal due to race sex nature and nurture, that is why we must tax the rich to help the poor. The top 20% produce 70% of emissions. We have 10 years to reduce emissions 50% or earth dies. 100 year old fantasies will not do this. Banks are real, 100 year old fantasies are not. Video phones won't be around forever. We have to prepare. Unhiding money is a social multiplier of goals. Make money private and public with nowhere to hide. We can rule ourselves with private money and public regulation. It values policy over greed. The only way to survive is to tax the rich and start a universal 100% private basic carbon income with 0% for corporations, NGOs and governments phased in over 10 years worldwide. The current public/private banking partnership is inimical to life on earth, This partnership is based on killing the unwhite for oil. Oddly enough, I only have to take on corporations, NGOs and governments to do it. It's easier than you think. We don't need them to do it. The rest is history.

[@Emmahahah]

Yes more climate change KZbinrs to follow!

[@zentouro]

we're the coolest club

[@moodySnoopy]

Why can you not have both?

[@zentouro]

we're talking in pretty broad strokes here. if you as an individual are capable of both that is great and wonderful and i applaud you. this conversation is more about what should the community focus its collective resources on, pushing individual actions or systematic change.

[@moodySnoopy]

@@zentouro yea I agree. I think we all can do something individually but nothing will have an impact if we do not collectively ask for a systematic change. Thank you for your video on the subject. This should be our only conversation topic...

[@robertcallaghan4029]

*$$$ Our Stolen History $$$* In geological time, Gaia is entering menopause. It spins slower, It's getting wider around the middle, tilting and wobbling a bit, rebounding up at the poles, low on magnetic charm, drying up in the mainlands, being gouged on the coasts, and popping out in volcanoes while having severe hot flashes. Imagine a falling droplet of water pulsating and you'll get the picture. Having slept with a menopausal woman, I can tell you our rest is in trouble. I remember when laptops didn't bend. We have a fridge made in 1946, it still works. Maybe always has. The billionaires stole the missing pentagon trillions for several post-collapse billionaire bunkers underground worldwide. You will never see the 1%'s bunkers on a video screen, but not even the pentagon can spend that much on child porn. Banks stole public credit 100 years ago to fight a war on the unwhite. After the civil war, the railroad barons got rich shipping oil. The banks got super rich off railroads and oil. The banks formed a cartel in 1913 and privatized public credit. The banks funded WW1 and got rich investing in transport and arms. The banks crashed 1929. The banks funded WW2 to beat communism and depression. Propaganda is 100 years old. So is feminism and socialism. It takes 50 years to complete energy and social systems worldwide without $ incentive. Everybody is unequal due to race sex nature and nurture, that is why we must tax the rich to help the poor. The top 20% produce 70% of emissions. We have 10 years to reduce emissions 50% or earth dies. 100 year old fantasies will not do this. Banks are real, 100 year old fantasies are not. Video phones won't be around forever. We have to prepare. Unhiding money is a social multiplier of goals. Make money private and public with nowhere to hide. We can rule ourselves with private money and public regulation. It values policy over greed. The only way to survive is to tax the rich and start a universal 100% private basic carbon income with 0% for corporations, NGOs and governments phased in over 10 years worldwide. The current public/private banking partnership is inimical to life on earth, This partnership is based on killing the unwhite for oil. Oddly enough, I only have to take on corporations, NGOs and governments to do it. It's easier than you think. We don't need them to do it. The rest is history.

[@johnnyjones3362]

Im sure there is a mental institution in your area. You should check in. Its time

[@devvyas6751]

great vid

[@remsorian3]

you had to understand that if the atom and the neutron come together it produces heat above 1,000 degrees and it thinks a bit that in the North Pole and in the South Pole it was tested and the Chinese managed to make a cold chemical weapon

[@crowdsourcingsustainability]

Love that y'all are having this conversation. I think both are important but heavily skew towards structural change... As did these 16 sustainability/climate experts I spoke with (you'll appreciate this) www.crowdsourcingsustainability.com/sustainability-leaders-how-you-can-help-stop-global-warming/

[@91722854]

promote e bikes, pour more tax into e bikes and bikes infrastructures and penalise those who drive by raising private cars tax, reforming urban planning and general city access, bike highways, to scale of intercity

[@dennismitchell5276]

Electric toothbrush?

[@holdenrobbins852]

My solution to climate change, but a big mirror at the Lagrange point between the sun and the Earth, and redirect any excess energy to power off-world colonies. You're welcome.

[@remsorian3]

put two magnets next to each other and you will see certain things and You will understand a lot of what I meant by the North Pole and the South Pole you have to understand

[@carolineforest4202]

My greatest contribution was to choose not to breed. It was an option I personally could take due to federal laws allowing it.

[@andydutton455]

silly is great!

[@Wookey.]

Bikes are of course win, win, win. (Actually win, win, win, win, because Adam forgot health (on top of time, money and emissions). Dutchifiying the world's towns and cities is a pretty large lever to improve the world in multiple ways, and it's not even particularly expensive.

[@climatebreak]

i disagree with this video's notion that individual actions don't make a difference. the amount of carbon dioxide i have personally prevented over a decade is measurable and real, all the while listening to others excuse themselves from taking any sized action because "it's corporation x or government y's responsibility, not mine." millions of people choosing to make small actions could make a BIG difference collectively, but they were told what they do doesn't make a difference. the blame game and discouraging individuals does nothing but hasten earth's demise.

[@betawarier346]

Make the environment green again

[@dh00mketu]

People have been environmentally conscious before, there have been whole cultures and religions built around environmental conscious, this movement isn't new.

[@eroorefulufoo6625]

could you maybe point out when someone has said something classist or racist over personal change? from what I gather, the problem is more about vanity (which is a huge issue, what I mean is that that's the issue I've noticed), but I'd like to understand what you mean about classism or racism in personal change, to maybe try to get some more complete sense of how to go about discussing this topic (maybe to clear up a bit yeah I also see that it can be hypocritical, as in richer and whiter people tend to emit more, is that what you mean?)

[@eroorefulufoo6625]

love the videos btw

[@zentouro]

hi! the most often seen example, and one you'll see a lot in my comment sections before i delete them: people saying the only/most sustainable thing is dietary change (an option that is not available to everyone based on cost or location) what do you mean by vanity? i'd love to hear more about that

[@eroorefulufoo6625]

@@zentouro thanks for responding :) i'm not sure what you mean by cost or location in the diet context, but i totally agree that money obviously plays a huge role. i saw this short documentary about how some families have to choose between eating mcdonald's or some lettuce, which is in no way ok in and of itself, but means choosing something hurtful to the climate over something healthy, relatively cheap and more sustainable. i have no problem turning a blind eye towards that in this case, because that's a case where system change is the only way to allow them to contribute more sustainably (as well as not be diabetic and whatnot), and on top of that, someone else is obviously having a bigger impact on the climate than they are. but what did you mean by cost or location? the vanity thing is what you referred to in the video on climateadam's channel, how people can sometimes make personal changes (and imply that you should make them as well) as a way of protecting themselves from being called hypocrites (which is a part of a bigger societal problem in reality, but plays out as vanity in this context) there's also that other problem of it being impossible to change how the market works, when we talk about political change in general this is a topic that comes up, and i in no way think that the market is gonna be the solution to climate change. i think this is where a lot of our struggles with the whole "personal vs systemic " debate comes from, so i just wanted to clear that up as well

[@zentouro]

by cost - i just meant how much diets that are 'more sustainable' cost, being vegetarian/vegan and healthy costs a lot more than just grabbing what you have time for in the drive through. and by location - not everyone lives near places that sell fresh fruits and vegetables. i don't really see the vanity/not wanting to be a hypocrite as a problem, so long as you're not using it as a bludgeon against other folks.

[@bundleofperceptions1397]

If this is the level of debate you've been involved in, you need to associate yourself with smarter people. This debate is so twentieth century. Do catch up.

[@zentouro]

hi. this isn't a debate, what are you even talking about.