[apo]

I'm sure the emotions are genuine, but articles like this leave me with a sense that those concerned are waiting for others (especially "leaders") to make something happen. They want electric cars to be mandated so they can continue their addiction to the automobile despite the severe environmental effects of car culture regardless of the fuel source. They want government to force companies to develop carbon neutral everything so that they can continue their lives of consumption uninterrupted.

We control our own actions. Our continued individual consumption leads to CO2 emissions. It's in our power to radically reduce our own carbon footprint by scaling back our lives. Not seeking out environmentally-friendly alternatives, but by curbing our out-of-control consumption urges which lie at the heart of this entire mess.

However, this requires painful, life-changing choices for many. Foregoing the house in the burbs for a walkable/rideable commute. Shunning unsustainable locations like Silicon Valley, even if that means reduction in income. Scaling way back on air travel. Avoiding foods grown in rainforest whose consumption encourages deforestation (e.g., coffee). Living far below our means, in other words.

Stop blaming Trump. Rejoining the Paris Accords won't solve the problem. Far more radical adjustments will be needed to prevent even the mildest effects now being predicted.

I want to see people voicing climate change concerns recommending the only thing that audience members can directly control - live a far simpler life and start doing it now. Stop complaining about how impractical this option is. This is what every "leader" is doing, from CEOs to presidents. Act - just like you are expecting others to do so.

[Will_Parker]

The trouble is, making sacrifices for yourself, as a voluntary moral choice, and just expecting other people to do the same is not going to be a successful strategy, because you're up against human nature itself.

Any pragmatic strategy to reduce the impact of climate change must start with international cooperation. From the point of view of the USA, this must start with a new administration. Then, with this cooperation we could find actions not strictly rooted in dreamy idealism, including enforcing the changes in lifestyle you mention at scale. (Through agreements, tariffs, etc.) A real global strategy also needs to involve some very bitter pills and compromises, e.g. taking a fresh look at nuclear, geoengineering research, and having the hard conversations about global population growth in emerging countries, and what people will do in the vast regions of the world which won't be habitable for much longer.

Any other strategy is just wishful thinking, and avoiding the cold hard facts. And the facts on this will catch up. All the trees you can plant or the most frugal lifestyle you are capable of will make precisely zero difference if it isn't based on global cooperation. Andrew Yang in the most recent democratic debate was right: a lot of the damage is already done and some of the discussion needs to be about how we can move to higher ground.

[bromuro]

> making sacrifices for yourself, as a voluntary moral choice, and just expecting other people to do the same is not going to be a successful strategy, because you're up against human nature itself.

I have the opposite experience in my life so far (40yo), and I am a perpetrator of this “strategy”.

Ask yourself, for example, why the nature of humans is that hopeless for you. How are the humans around you? (also those in the news)

What if - before fixing earth - i fix myself? My circle of friends, of colleagues, the family... from my most intimate partner to the whole society it looks like a long way .

But I will be surprised how many humans can change for good, just because I was the one changing first.

it will never stop.

[apo]

> From the point of view of the USA, this must start with a new administration.

Not much happened under the old administration. Things got worse.

[justin66]

Solving climate change is a collective action problem. Action taken with other people is the entire game.

[apo]

How is that incompatible with what I said?

[CalRobert]

I can choose not to be a school shooter in an attempt to reduce shootings, too.

Personal choice matters little globally. It's too late for the pebbles to vote, so to speak.

[apo]

> Personal choice matters little globally.

Is not the personal, voluntary choice to use Facebook a decision that matters globally? There is no compulsion or legislation there. At least not in the form that many might think.