Funkstain wrote:

AND back at you: what do we do, if not nothing?

Funkstain wrote:

what does that even mean? it's not binary. you can be massively hypocritical (ie: eat beef all day long whilst on a private jet) or you can be less hypocritical (make some effort to reduce personal carbon footprint however "drop in the ocean" it is)

Funkstain wrote:

So it's nihilism and acceptance is it

your point is clear - we could all stop eating meat and flying and driving and so on immediately but we're all still gonna die of climate change because it's a "drop in the ocean" compared to China coal, US interests, Amazon etc.

But that totally ignores the extra impacts of "stopping eating meat and flying and driving and consuming" etc. That won't just happen in a vacuum leading to a 4% reduction in CO2 or whatever. It will have a seismic impact on democracy, our elected representatives, and the amount of regulation they impose on corporations.

Governments don't act not just because they don't give a shit and want to earn as much money as they can whilst in power. Governments ALSO don't act because they believe (rightly) that we don't care enough, even to change our lifestyles a bit. If we prove we do care to that extent, to the extent that companies have to change to get our business, then you end up with governments who have to give a shit or die

Two things then: either the above is true or we may as well all commit suicide as worthless serfs, AND back at you: what do we do, if not nothing?

Funkstain wrote:

Diluted Dante wrote:

How do you persuade people to stop eating meat and flying and driving and consuming?

start from a place of not doing it so much yourself? tell them that it's contributing to significant climate change? help them understand that a large movement of people has a chance of getting change enacted? or we could just say "nah fuck it, those coal companies eh what's the point", I suppose, and eat steak as for Yoss - yeah you're right. the only hope is that enough do listen enough to change, and that gets to mass movement scale, and that impacts governmental outcomes

I wrote:

...I've always thought that wrapping perishable goods in permanent packaging, was perverse... After the plastic bag ban/charge initiative, the west shouldn't be too far off fixing this, I'd think.

Muzzy wrote:

No need to panic, lads, we're in safe hands

Diluted Dante wrote:

Funkstain wrote:

Diluted Dante wrote:

How do you persuade people to stop eating meat and flying and driving and consuming?

start from a place of not doing it so much yourself? tell them that it's contributing to significant climate change? help them understand that a large movement of people has a chance of getting change enacted? or we could just say "nah fuck it, those coal companies eh what's the point", I suppose, and eat steak as for Yoss - yeah you're right. the only hope is that enough do listen enough to change, and that gets to mass movement scale, and that impacts governmental outcomes

For years, we've been trying to get people to eat less sugar in their food. Persuasion absolutely failed. Implementing a sugar tax caused consumption of sugar to fall by 10%. It's not a case of 'doing nothing' if you aren't becoming a fucking hermit subsisting entirely the fruit that falls off trees naturally. It's about the difference individual choices will make compared to the difference national and international legislation will make. It's a chasm. Like Paul I'm sat here bemused. Did you watch the video?