HomeWorldEnvironmentWhat if Everyone Did Something to Slow Climate Change? • Researchers are looking at the impact that individuals’ actions can have on reducing carbon emissions — and the best ways to get people to adopt them.
What if Everyone Did Something to Slow Climate Change? • Researchers are looking at the impact that individuals’ actions can have on reducing carbon emissions — and the best ways to get people to adopt them.
September 28, 2024
What if Everyone Did Something to Slow Climate Change? • Researchers are looking at the impact that individuals’ actions can have on reducing carbon emissions — and the best ways to get people to adopt them.
>There is concern that promoting personal solutions to address global climate change lets corporations and governments off the hook and even plays into their hands. For example, a [carbon footprint calculator](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/31/opinion/climate-change-carbon-neutral.html) was created by the oil and gas company BP in 2004 as part of an advertising campaign to help people measure their impact on the environment. Critics said it was simply a way to shift the responsibility from big companies to everyday consumers.
>BP did create the calculator “as a way to put the onus on individual consumers, but it’s still valuable as a basic concept to say, ‘well, if you really do want to reduce your own emissions, shouldn’t you probably start with an estimate of how much you’re emitting?’” he said in a video interview. “Both can be true.”
>According to the organization [Project Drawdown,](https://drawdown.org/) which advances climate solutions, [individual and household actions](https://drawdown.org/insights/the-powerful-role-of-household-actions-in-solving-climate-change) taken together — from reducing food waste to installing LED lighting — have the potential to produce about 25 percent to 30 percent of the reductions in greenhouse emissions needed to avoid the extremely dangerous aspects of climate change.
>Take eating beef. Cows, and to a lesser extent goats and sheep, are [significant contributor](https://www.wri.org/insights/6-pressing-questions-about-beef-and-climate-change-answered)s to greenhouse gases through the methane they emit from gas and manure. And cows’ pastures are typically created by cutting down forests, which releases the carbon dioxide stored in trees.
>Of six interventions to change people’s behaviors, the study found, providing data or information was the least successful, while financial incentives like rebates, coupons and fines can make a difference.
What if large corporations ACTUALLY did something about climate change since them taking action has the impact of MILLIONS of individuals or more.
The media has been pushing the “What can we each personally do” narrative for a long time, and while it’s a nice thought, it’s a distraction from the real change that needs to happen.
What if corporations stopped putting the onus on people and started taking accountability for causing climate change.
It’s us, it’s corporations.
We need to be demanding public transportation, and taking it. Living in cities, using buses, subways, walking. Reducing plane usage, eating more vegan.
I recently found out aerosols in inhaler drugs are incredibly potent global warming agents.
WTF?
How should this even be allowed?
Why not both?
You can still hold corporations to account for shitty environmentally detrimental practises, while riding a bike instead of driving a car. You can still demand less plastic in packaging while cutting down on your own meat consumption. You can still criticise the fast fashion industry and demand environmentally friendly change, while actively seeking out and wearing environmentally conscious brands of clothing. And you don’t have to cut everything out of your life completely to have an impact – imperfect reduction in harmful climate practises is still better than none at all.
I do not understand why it gets implied by so many folks that it has to be an either/or approach, rather than a combined effort.
Survival always falls on the individual, because billionaires don’t value sustainability/life.
Everyone should not mean picking papers straws (not against it..just stupid misdirection) it should mean holding corporations accountable by starting with political participation.
We need an administration that is so fully supported and in control that they can make these decisions that are unpopular with very well funded lobbying organizations without risking the backlash from their disinformation campaigns and congressional supporters.
A supermajority in congress could begin holding corporations accountable for their crimes against the environment. They could end subsidies for polluters, claw back profits to address the crisis we are facing every day, eliminate their industries by subsidizing alternatives like wind/solar/advanced geothermal.. Continue to invest in research in areas to cut super emitting chemicals and industrial processes (concrete production / steel making / mining ) ..
I don’t disagree with the posters who came here to say that corporations need to share this burden. I came here to say that eating as much meat as we do is a good part of the solution. I don’t need to extoll the merits of less meat in our diets as others have made that point better than I ever could. That doesn’t mean don’t ever eat meat. Just two meatless days could create significant benefits.
Alas, most people–yes, most–have no interest beyond anything that doesn’t immediately affect or interest them personally. That enough people would voluntarily adopt individual actions that would help address the climate crisis is a fantasy. This is not me being cynical, it’s me referencing history.
The best thing an individual can do is vote, run, or build a political party to fight for climate interests and to fight to get money out of politics.
We are living in the largest scale version of “the few ruin it for the many” and the rich & powerful will kill us all to keep it going
The NYT is a terrible Trump normalizing corporate whore, stop spamming their carbon footprint BS here OP.
The planet would die slightly slower as corporations and governments continued to pour thousands of tons of sulfur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride and whatever new GHGs are invented directly into the atmosphere?
I quit using straws and have been using a metal water bottle for eight years, the climate should be saved by now right? My Taco Bell even uses small compostable cheese cups with less cheese, what else are we supposed to do?
What if we look for ways to reverse it?
Or, you know, make the cost of not polluting fall entirely on the largest polluters.
The billionaire class.
It’s a simple function of consumption and carbon. Reduce consumption or reduce emitted carbon
If we could get *everyone on earth* to do this one simple thing, it would offset the bad behavior of a single medium sized tech company for *one month*.
18 comments
>There is concern that promoting personal solutions to address global climate change lets corporations and governments off the hook and even plays into their hands. For example, a [carbon footprint calculator](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/31/opinion/climate-change-carbon-neutral.html) was created by the oil and gas company BP in 2004 as part of an advertising campaign to help people measure their impact on the environment. Critics said it was simply a way to shift the responsibility from big companies to everyday consumers.
>BP did create the calculator “as a way to put the onus on individual consumers, but it’s still valuable as a basic concept to say, ‘well, if you really do want to reduce your own emissions, shouldn’t you probably start with an estimate of how much you’re emitting?’” he said in a video interview. “Both can be true.”
>According to the organization [Project Drawdown,](https://drawdown.org/) which advances climate solutions, [individual and household actions](https://drawdown.org/insights/the-powerful-role-of-household-actions-in-solving-climate-change) taken together — from reducing food waste to installing LED lighting — have the potential to produce about 25 percent to 30 percent of the reductions in greenhouse emissions needed to avoid the extremely dangerous aspects of climate change.
>Take eating beef. Cows, and to a lesser extent goats and sheep, are [significant contributor](https://www.wri.org/insights/6-pressing-questions-about-beef-and-climate-change-answered)s to greenhouse gases through the methane they emit from gas and manure. And cows’ pastures are typically created by cutting down forests, which releases the carbon dioxide stored in trees.
>But a[ccording](https://www.wri.org/insights/6-pressing-questions-about-beef-and-climate-change-answered) to the [World Resource Institute](https://www.wri.org/), a research organization, if each person living in high beef-consuming countries — like the United States — ate 1.5 fewer burgers a week, the need for agricultural expansion and deforestation would be eliminated and greenhouse gases significantly reduced.
>Of six interventions to change people’s behaviors, the study found, providing data or information was the least successful, while financial incentives like rebates, coupons and fines can make a difference.
>But research has also found that social comparisons — what are my friends and neighbors doing? — had the biggest effect: When customers were told how their utility use compared to their neighbors’, the higher users often [decreased their consumption](https://www.nber.org/digest/feb10/peer-comparisons-reduce-residential-energy-use) by one to two percent. And [with solar panels](https://www.vox.com/2014/10/24/7059995/solar-power-is-contagious-neighbor-effects-panels-installation), people are persuaded to install them if they see them on their neighbors’ rooftops.
[Read a copy of the rest of the article here.](https://archive.is/l4uPW)
It’s mass production of renewables or bust.
What if large corporations ACTUALLY did something about climate change since them taking action has the impact of MILLIONS of individuals or more.
The media has been pushing the “What can we each personally do” narrative for a long time, and while it’s a nice thought, it’s a distraction from the real change that needs to happen.
What if corporations stopped putting the onus on people and started taking accountability for causing climate change.
It’s us, it’s corporations.
We need to be demanding public transportation, and taking it. Living in cities, using buses, subways, walking. Reducing plane usage, eating more vegan.
I recently found out aerosols in inhaler drugs are incredibly potent global warming agents.
WTF?
How should this even be allowed?
Why not both?
You can still hold corporations to account for shitty environmentally detrimental practises, while riding a bike instead of driving a car. You can still demand less plastic in packaging while cutting down on your own meat consumption. You can still criticise the fast fashion industry and demand environmentally friendly change, while actively seeking out and wearing environmentally conscious brands of clothing. And you don’t have to cut everything out of your life completely to have an impact – imperfect reduction in harmful climate practises is still better than none at all.
I do not understand why it gets implied by so many folks that it has to be an either/or approach, rather than a combined effort.
Survival always falls on the individual, because billionaires don’t value sustainability/life.
Everyone should not mean picking papers straws (not against it..just stupid misdirection) it should mean holding corporations accountable by starting with political participation.
We need an administration that is so fully supported and in control that they can make these decisions that are unpopular with very well funded lobbying organizations without risking the backlash from their disinformation campaigns and congressional supporters.
A supermajority in congress could begin holding corporations accountable for their crimes against the environment. They could end subsidies for polluters, claw back profits to address the crisis we are facing every day, eliminate their industries by subsidizing alternatives like wind/solar/advanced geothermal.. Continue to invest in research in areas to cut super emitting chemicals and industrial processes (concrete production / steel making / mining ) ..
I don’t disagree with the posters who came here to say that corporations need to share this burden. I came here to say that eating as much meat as we do is a good part of the solution. I don’t need to extoll the merits of less meat in our diets as others have made that point better than I ever could. That doesn’t mean don’t ever eat meat. Just two meatless days could create significant benefits.
Alas, most people–yes, most–have no interest beyond anything that doesn’t immediately affect or interest them personally. That enough people would voluntarily adopt individual actions that would help address the climate crisis is a fantasy. This is not me being cynical, it’s me referencing history.
The best thing an individual can do is vote, run, or build a political party to fight for climate interests and to fight to get money out of politics.
We are living in the largest scale version of “the few ruin it for the many” and the rich & powerful will kill us all to keep it going
The NYT is a terrible Trump normalizing corporate whore, stop spamming their carbon footprint BS here OP.
https://www.sfgate.com/sf-culture/article/new-york-times-washed-19780600.php
The planet would die slightly slower as corporations and governments continued to pour thousands of tons of sulfur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride and whatever new GHGs are invented directly into the atmosphere?
I quit using straws and have been using a metal water bottle for eight years, the climate should be saved by now right? My Taco Bell even uses small compostable cheese cups with less cheese, what else are we supposed to do?
What if we look for ways to reverse it?
Or, you know, make the cost of not polluting fall entirely on the largest polluters.
The billionaire class.
It’s a simple function of consumption and carbon. Reduce consumption or reduce emitted carbon
If we could get *everyone on earth* to do this one simple thing, it would offset the bad behavior of a single medium sized tech company for *one month*.