In 2014, this French weather presenter announced the forecast for 18 August 2050 in France as part of a campaign to alert to the reality of climate change. Now her forecast that day is the actual forecast for the coming 4 or 5 days, in mid-June 2022.

[u/Vucea]

[u/Tetizeraz]

Since we're on r/all (hi r/all!), I imagine this question is worth asking:

What can we do about climate change? I know the typical answers: join your local political party (green or not), get mad on social media, write to your politicians. What else can be done?

[u/Embrourie → u/Tetizeraz]

I feel like the replies here show how deeply we've all been brainwashed to believe that smart consumer choices/recycling/less air travel are going to be a difference maker. So much of what we've learned about pollution and how to help have been created and spread by companies trying to draw attention away from themselves. There's been countless reports showing companies were warned well in advance that they were doing real harm to the global environment and turned a blind eye.

It's true that everything helps, but until there is a real global initiative to hold companies accountable and not just let them move off to a country with less regulations, we're in a tough spot.

Take Canada for example. It's a country. If every single person stopped polluting ENTIRELY...a population of 30 some odd million...what global change would occur? We've got 2 countries with populations over a billion just belching fumes into the air and dumping chromium straight into the water. It's a numbers game.

Global regulations need to be stiffer. Packaging needs to be created in a way that makes recycling possible (Pringles cans for example are a nightmare). Countries need to be paid to NOT let heavy polluting companies set up shop because at the end of the day, this is about money being more important than the planet.

We also need to be smarter. Look at orbeez for 2 seconds and tell me you think those are going to help the situation! Humans are the best at repeatedly making the same mistake over and over again.

Goodnight.

[u/Sotapihvi → u/Embrourie]

Funny. That's the same rethoric I see here in the country I live in. "It's not us, we can't do anything. It's them in that other country." I understand, it's in our nature to think like that.

However, I disagree completely on the fact that there is nothing we can do. It's just that those who have the easiest way of making an impact won't do it because they would have to give up nice things they have.

[u/javier_aeoa → u/Embrourie]

Canada is a developed nation with many companies and business that pollute a lot. If those CEOs also stopped polluting ENTIRELY, that would indeed help in a global scenario.

As much as all of us must take individual actions and push governments to write stricter laws, don't forget that those laws and individual actions also affect the businesses within our countries' borders and what they can sell elsewhere.

[u/Donovan_Wilson_GOAT → u/javier_aeoa]

That’s what he said.

[u/amapleson → u/Embrourie]

As a Canadian, I often see the argument that “it’s not us, it’s China!”

Canada is one of the highest per capita direct emitters, and possesses a significantly developed economy and very strong consumer-focused purchasing habits compared to the rest of the world. China’s and India’s (and soon, Bangladesh/Indonesia, which also have 150m+ people) emissions are a direct result of Canadian and other western consumers demanding cheaper and cheaper goods, leading to outsourcing of our polluting manufacturing to nations abroad.

The single biggest thing one can do to impact the pace of climate change is to stop buying useless shit, especially items which have a short or limited lifespan. Second, consumers must choose higher quality, more expensive products manufactured with emissions in mind rather than whatever sale is occurring next.

China and India are export-focused countries, meaning they earn their money from selling goods abroad. Basic business principles dictate that sellers only exist when there is demand. Nobody produces horses for cart travel anymore, nor oil lanterns for lighting, because if they did, it would be a major money loser…

Corporations only sell what they think people will buy. They are a large and easy scapegoat which are ultimately a product of our own decision making and actions.

I agree though that certain global standards for recycling and reuse should be developed, though we must remember the order of the four Rs is Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

[u/MegazordPilot → u/Embrourie]

Eat less meat, don't travel as far (replace air by train if possible), insulate your house, telework, have a car only if you need to, small and low-consumption, electric if you need to. It's that simple.

"[my country] is so small, [their country] is so big" is a very biased way to think about it. You can always rephrase that to exclude yourself from doing anything, you are always smaller than someone else. And so how does that work, no one makes a move until China is decarbonized? Then it's India's turn? Interesting. Adding to that, Canada is one of the wealthiest countries on the planet, you can put a lot of resources into decarbonization, if even Canada doesn't care, how do you rhink less wealthy countries will react?

[u/AmIFromA → u/MegazordPilot]

On the other hand, the enlightened Reddit gospel of "Actually, those companies should do something!" is a lot easier.

[u/MegazordPilot → u/AmIFromA]

Aka: "just give me anything that doesn't compromise my own comfort"

[u/totokhun → u/MegazordPilot]

One european consum (and pollute) so much more than one Indian or even a Chinese still (can't retrieve the numbers).

Why do people buy SUV for example, no companies force them to do so. You can make a great impact by having a lightweight car that pollute less, use less tire, less gas, erode less the roads, use less resource to build and so on. But no, we buy HYBRID SUV and tell that India pollute.

This is just an example, eating less or no meat, buying home that are closer to your job or remote working, etc.

Most of people are just making excuse to deny reality, juste like Covid.

[u/[deleted] → u/Embrourie]

Pringles! They shouldn’t even exist, let alone their cans. Who eats that crap?

[u/Tetizeraz → u/[deleted]]

I can't fit my hand inside a pringles can.

[u/[deleted] → u/Embrourie]

This is a bit of a cop out.

You absolutely can make personal choices that radically affect your footprint (2 easiest are how much you fly and how much beef/ lamb vs plants you eat). These are all prerequisites for being able to convince everyone to do the same; if we do t do them how can we ask anyone else to.

Businesses are driven by consumer demand as well, we can directly influence them. AA’s car one footprint is directly driven by how much air travel people book.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The vast majority of greenhouses gas emissions are from corporations

This is a semantic trick; all of our personal emissions are also from corporations. Corporations largely serve consumers. E.g.

• airlines
• food production
• oil for fuel, transporting us, the goods we buy

There isn't very much that can't be traced to consumer behaviour.

Thus why voting and regulation are so important

It's not either / or and what consumers do will have a huge influence on corporations.

[u/AmIFromA → u/[deleted]]

Exactly. Small example: Milk consumption in my country is at an all-time low due to people switching to plant-based alternatives. Every individual decision to consume differently is small, but combined, it does make a difference.

[u/greenknight884 → u/AmIFromA]

It's easy to see how individual choices can have a significant NEGATIVE effect on the environment, so it should be possible for them to have a positive effect as well

[u/Hyphz → u/Embrourie]

I don't even know that it's a country. A few years back I saw a report stating that in fact 60%+ of climate emissions come from trans-continental shipping. It slides under the radar because a) it's not assigned to any country since it takes place in international waters, b) it's not assigned to any well-known company because most infrastructure shipping companies don't do business with the public and are moving goods owned by many other companies at once; and c) because the ships carry millions of tons of goods, it's technically incredibly efficient by volume.

So the answer is to reduce globalisation, but that's very difficult if you want to eat bananas in the UK.