Which of your climate actions make the biggest difference? Here’s how to find out (theconversation.com)

submitted 5 days ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] foxymochakitten@slrpnk.net 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I imagine actions such as snacking on the bourgeoisie would make the biggest difference, realistically speaking

EDIT: okay I read the article and this is actually pretty cool!! It's very practical and offers concrete actions for all of us.

In previous work, we showed how inequality constrains many people’s capacity to participate in climate action, whether that’s sustainable investing, protesting, or simply having the resources to make different choices. The same people with the most freedom to act often have the biggest footprints.

[-] AnalogRegression@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

Realizing that I, being an individual and not a massive corporation, have no power to effect any meaningful or notable positive change.

Decades ago the WEF created the idea that it's not the powerful elites and their corporate machines that are destroying the planet, it's the individual person.

The term "carbon footprint" is a prime example of this. It places the climate crisis solely upon the individual consumer, rather than the mass producing and polluting conglomerates that produce the very products they need us to consume.

[-] Leviathan@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

MY climate actions? Go fuck yourself.

[-] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 10 points 5 days ago

Zuckerburg is. He's making a bunker in Hawaii.

[-] athatet@lemmy.zip 10 points 5 days ago

He’s making a tomb in Hawaii.

[-] Hirom@beehaw.org 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

When he eventually gets burried in his ~~pyramid~~ bunker, I hope Meta gets burried with him, and sealed so it gets undisturbed for thousands of years.

[-] LynneOfFlowers@midwest.social 3 points 4 days ago

"This is not a place of honor..."

[-] amanda@aggregatet.org 1 points 4 days ago

”Look at me ye mighty, and despair”

[-] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago

I can only dream.

[-] veganpizza69@lemmy.vg 4 points 5 days ago

Step 1: Get power

[-] eleitl@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 days ago

Step 2: Start killing off the biggest consumers

[-] bstix@feddit.dk 0 points 3 days ago

I'll getting sick of the apathy.

Vote. That is what we all need to and can do.

[-] Allero@lemmy.today 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

That's one of the things we can do, but there's much more.

When people think of activism, they often envision mass, country-scale protests, illegal blockings, and police brutality. And perhaps obviously, the idea of getting into this kind of activism is scary and paralyzing, especially in a modern fascist society.

But there is plenty you can do that is perfectly legal, not very hard to get into, and will help you cultivate the civil power and responsibility.

Check your local activist groups - someone around you may advocate for more green zones, bike lanes, feeding the homeless, teaching poor children, something of the sort. These actions, when getting enough people, are often approved by the local government, and are completely legal.

With the experience you get, recruit new followers, and advocate for a positive local change. At that point, government is still no enemy to you, and you can work together to make it happen. Contact political representatives and advocate your ideas to them so as to gain their support.

Only then, and only if you're actually set for it and have enough support, you can cross the line into something your government might not like. Mass protests and riots are instruments for when all of the above fails. With enough support, you'll be able to cultivate back the idea that, ultimately, people are sources of political power.

If you don't want to cross the line, it's okay, either! There's plenty to change on a completely legal, government-approved level. Just...get it going. As someone who took part in several local activism projects - they do work. We have successfully reversed several disastrous decisions - straight from the fascist hellhole, while others were giving up. We made the governor of a huge metropolitan area stand in front of us, promising to ban the illegal construction site, make this zone legally protected and improve the park area - and he delivered. Rise up.

[+] BorgDrone@feddit.nl -6 points 4 days ago

Don't breed. Nothing else comes close in reducing your ecological footprint by an enormous margin.

[-] crapwittyname@feddit.uk 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

This is silly, because the whole reason we want to avoid the climate apocalypse is so that humanity can keep on existing. If everyone stopped breeding then we would be doing the work of the climate apocalypse for it. Which is silly.
Also, anyone dedicated enough to sacrifice their biological imperative for the environment should definitely have kids and raise them properly, otherwise there'll be nobody left speaking sense in the next generation.
Also also, even not having kids, pets, a car, going vegan and never travelling is not enough to fix the problem. The people with the power to stop this are the very, very, very rich and the corporations pulling fossil fuels out of the earth and burning them. This is a true fact.

[-] BorgDrone@feddit.nl 1 points 3 days ago

There is a huge difference between keep existing and breeding like rabbits.

In 1927 there were approximately 2 billion people on earth. In 1975 we went past 4 billion. 48 years to add 2 billion people. 1998 we went over 6 billion, 23 years for another 2 billion. In 2022 we hit 8 billion.

In 100 years we quadrupled the human population. Do you think we’d be having any of the current ecological problems if we kept the population at 2 billion?

The earth is a finite resource. There cannot be unlimited population growth regardless of how well each individual treats the environment. We’re over 8 billion already, when do we stop? 16? 32? 64? How many billion humans can you fit on a planet?

[-] tomi000@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

So your plan to save the planet is for the people who care for the planet to stop having children and those who dont give a fuck keep having them? Genius

[-] crapwittyname@feddit.uk 3 points 3 days ago

How would you control the global population? What carrots and what sticks would you use to persuade and coerce people into a managed population level? This discussion tends to get into some very messy corners, because there's just no properly ethical way to do it.

The earth is an incredibly bountiful place. If we were to stop using up its non renewable resources we would be fine. In terms of space, the population density of earth's habitable land is about 50 people per square kilometre. Compare that with a dense urban area where it's over 10,000 people per square kilometre. There's enough space.

My argument is: yes there are problems with the human race, but attempting to artificially stem population growth is not the answer to them. Providing stable lives for the majority of people globally would be the right place to start.

[-] tomi000@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Also killing yourself works wonders in the same way.

[-] GiveOver@feddit.uk 4 points 4 days ago

What about serial killing

[-] FatVegan@leminal.space 5 points 4 days ago

The anti breeding

[-] The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 days ago

The reason breeding is bad for the environment, is because of the impact the average person has on climate. If we lived sustainable lives, breeding would not have that much of an impact.

If you try to live a sustainable life to the best of your abilities, and you instill that same mindset and way of living onto your kids, it's perfectly fine to have kids.

But if you're going to drive giant trucks powered by oil, eat red meat every day with a glass of milk, use and abuse plastic for everything, and be a massive consumerist, then sure; having kids is terrible for the environment because they will probably also do all of that.

[-] BorgDrone@feddit.nl 0 points 3 days ago

You cannot have a human that has zero environmental footprint. The world population has exploded over the last 100 years. There is no point in lowering your ecological footprint if we’re outbreeding any progress in a few year time.

But if you're going to drive giant trucks powered by oil, eat red meat every day with a glass of milk, use and abuse plastic for everything, and be a massive consumerist, then sure

You misunderstand the scale of the difference. You can do everything in your power to lower your ecological footprint, recycle at your optimum, don’t eat meat, get rid of your car and only use a bike and public transport, etc. etc. If you have 2 kids and teach them to do the same your ecological footprint will still be many times higher than someone who eats steak every day and drives 3 hummers to work while rolling coal and throwing styrofoam pellets out the window. It’s that big of a difference.

A few numbers to illustrate, the savings in tonnes of co2 equivalent per year.

recycle: 0.21 tonnes
replace car with hybrid: 0.51 tonnes
eat a plant-based diet: 0.82 tonnes
only use green energy: 1.47 tonnes
live completely car-free: 2.4 tonnes
have 1 child less: 58.6 tonnes

It’s not just your kids, it’s also your kid’s kids, and your kid’s kid’s kids’s. etc.

[-] mech@feddit.org 1 points 3 days ago

The entire purpose of protecting the climate is to keep earth hospitable for our children. If everyone followed your advice, it would be pointless.

[-] BorgDrone@feddit.nl 0 points 3 days ago

https://www.vhemt.org/

this post was submitted on 30 May 2026

91 points (97.9% liked)

Climate

8685 readers

312 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net