It’s important to keep in mind that the choices you can make are limited to those choices that are actually yours to make.
It doesn’t matter how serious you perceive a problem to be. You don’t get to pick whether some family you’ve never met in Bangladesh eats pork for dinner tonight. Not your choice.
You can choose to engage in political advocacy, but while your political advocacy may have effects, those effects will almost never be to allow you to chose worldwide policies.
Even when political movements partially succeed, the outcome may be to make things much worse. Environmentalists today need to very seriously consider the question of whether today’s climate crisis is the direct result of the success of the anti-nuclear movement 50 years ago.
I can’t make other people’s choices, but I can support policies that make polluting more costly. For example, included in this would be slashing many agriculture subsidies. It doesn’t make any sense to subsidize dairy farmers and it creates unfair competition for non-dairy alternatives.
You don’t get to pick whether some family you’ve never met in Bangladesh eats pork for dinner tonight.
Come on, be reasonable. These things are at the bottom of any vegan’s list who are concerned with the environment. The carbon footprint of people living in Bangladesh is very small and people have way less means to make changes to their routines.
Even when political movements partially succeed, the outcome may be to make things much worse.
Ask yourself, why be concerned with environmentalists if the earth is burning and drowning at the same time. Part of the UK is going to disappear, by 2050 200,000 houses and businesses will be gone. Jakarta will too along with Dhaka, Lagos and many more densely populated areas. This isn’t far away in the future, but it has already started.
By 2100 22% of land that was well suited for habitation won’t be anymore, including California.
There is nothing environmentalist about these facts, they are not controversial in the scientific community. But in any case, they are so serious that it seems odd to focus on the unintended side effects of environmentalism. If anything, we need more of it now than ever.
Environmentalists today need to very seriously consider the question of whether today’s climate crisis is the direct result of the success of the anti-nuclear movement 50 years ago.
It’d be a bit much to identify that as the one single cause of climate change. The carbon footprint per capita in France is lower than that of the UK but still not low enough. But yea, the anti-nuclear movement sure doesn’t help today.
Oh btw, current Western meat based diets are not compatible with a low enough footprint to combat climate change. People are going to have to eat way less meat and dairy.
It’s important to keep in mind that the choices you can make are limited to those choices that are actually yours to make.
It doesn’t matter how serious you perceive a problem to be. You don’t get to pick whether some family you’ve never met in Bangladesh eats pork for dinner tonight. Not your choice.
You can choose to engage in political advocacy, but while your political advocacy may have effects, those effects will almost never be to allow you to chose worldwide policies.
Even when political movements partially succeed, the outcome may be to make things much worse. Environmentalists today need to very seriously consider the question of whether today’s climate crisis is the direct result of the success of the anti-nuclear movement 50 years ago.
I can’t make other people’s choices, but I can support policies that make polluting more costly. For example, included in this would be slashing many agriculture subsidies. It doesn’t make any sense to subsidize dairy farmers and it creates unfair competition for non-dairy alternatives.
Come on, be reasonable. These things are at the bottom of any vegan’s list who are concerned with the environment. The carbon footprint of people living in Bangladesh is very small and people have way less means to make changes to their routines.
Ask yourself, why be concerned with environmentalists if the earth is burning and drowning at the same time. Part of the UK is going to disappear, by 2050 200,000 houses and businesses will be gone. Jakarta will too along with Dhaka, Lagos and many more densely populated areas. This isn’t far away in the future, but it has already started.
By 2100 22% of land that was well suited for habitation won’t be anymore, including California.
There is nothing environmentalist about these facts, they are not controversial in the scientific community. But in any case, they are so serious that it seems odd to focus on the unintended side effects of environmentalism. If anything, we need more of it now than ever.
It’d be a bit much to identify that as the one single cause of climate change. The carbon footprint per capita in France is lower than that of the UK but still not low enough. But yea, the anti-nuclear movement sure doesn’t help today.
Oh btw, current Western meat based diets are not compatible with a low enough footprint to combat climate change. People are going to have to eat way less meat and dairy.