I am so sick of climate change deniers.

[Aegon]

And I fully agree with you.- the ONLY way for humans to have less effect on the climate is to have less humans -

And NOBODY wants to deal with that....

They want to breed like rats and have a nice cage to live in......

Internalizing the ruling class rhetoric, are we? 100 companies are responsible for 71% of GHG emissions. To put the onus on the individual is incorrect.

---

If we as a society want to take climate change seriously, then the neoliberals in the Democratic Party are not doing nearly enough. Sure, they realize it's a problem, which is already better than Republicans. But the hard pill to swallow for ruling class capitalists? There is no way to combat climate change without sweeping regulations on private companies... far more sweeping than anything Obama tried. Ideally, we would go the eco-socialist direction and outright ban fossil fuels by X year while pouring money into renewables. But I recognize that probably won't happen in this decade.

[The Grand Nudger]

If we're putting the onus on individuals, then it's simply not the case that fewer humans means less emissions, because so few individuals account for so much of the pie to begin with. Sterilize the entire african continent and it might not register as a blip because it emits less than anyone else per capita and in absolute terms.

That's how it goes, though. After we're done being skeptical™ about climate change action we tie some other anchor around it's neck, some favorite bullshit of our own that all but ensures we'll never tackle the problem - which isn't how many of us there are - but how few of us behave. I know that you've been told this before, just as you've had the necessity of climate change action explained to you, OLB.

[Rev. Rye]

The method: cut down on greenhouse emissions, with the Paris Agreement specifying an ideal of Zero Net Emissions by 2050. Ideally the timeframe for reducing this warming is As Soon As Possible, but if you want a number, the one most frequently given is, at this point, about ten years. And I suspect that even this is simultaneously too generous (it might take less time than that for change to be irreversible, and, indeed, it may have already happened) and too quick (because I’m not certain that it’s even reasonable to expect such a rapid decrease in carbon emissions, even if nations like America or China would want to.)

[The Grand Nudger]

More hopeful than reasonable - but hey..we get it together every now and then. Now would be a great time.

Not only would we have to wean ourselves off the petro tit, we'd have to provide 2nd and 3rd world countries (which have yet to fully avail themselves of petro development and wealth) with the same tech and commensurate funding. Otherwise, we'd be telegraphing our plan to shut the door behind us having already drunk our fill to their detriment.

[Rev. Rye]

More hopeful than reasonable - but hey..we get it together every now and then. Now would be a great time.

Not only would we have to wean ourselves off the petro tit, we'd have to provide 2nd and 3rd world countries (which have yet to fully avail themselves of petro development and wealth) with the same tech and commensurate funding. Otherwise, we'd be telegraphing our plan to shut the door behind us having already drunk our fill to their detriment.

And the sad thing is shutting the door behind them after drinking our fill to their detriment is generally SOP for what happens when we interfere in second and third world countries.