DarthFrodo

From the consumers point of view, you can only choose products that are in supply, so we think our choices don't really have an impact. People often see it as a systemic issue that's outside of our control.

From the corporations point of view, the consumer creates the demand and if they didn't provide the supply, another corporation would. They also see it as a systemic issue that's outside of their control.

The corporations love nothing more than the message "just consume our stuff and don't blame yourself for any environmental impact. You can't be perfect anyways, so might as well book a flight, buy a gas car, or buy our beef." It's so comfortable for both parties because they don't have to change anything and can just point the finger at each other for the negative consequences.

Of course it's sometimes necessary to do something polluting. People who need a car and can only afford a used car probably won't be able to buy an electric one. I don't even think that's unethical consumption. But those who can afford an electric car and choose a new gas car instead do something unethical. Ultimately many of these practical issues will be solved as green technology matures, there will be cheap-ish used electric cars in the future, for example.

For things like steak, I agree. Unfortunately it will take many years to become affordable for the average person, but when it happens, it will be awesome.

For many other categories, plant-based alternatives are already close enough for me. I recently tried the store brand plant based Schnitzel from Lidl (a supermarket/discounter chain here in Germany) and it was surprisingly tasty, given that it doesn't even cost more than factory farmed meat by now.

There are decent burgers, nuggets, kebab, chicken and salami alternatives around as well. It's crazy how much the taste, price and availability of these products have improved in the last 10 years alone. I don't miss real meat by now.

I heard about studies that successfully used algae to inhibit methane-producing microbes in the short term, but I couldn't find any studies that prove its long term efficacy yet. It'll be interesting to see whether the microbes can adapt to the algae in the long term or not.

The issue with using byproducts as animal fodder is that ruminants produce a lot of methane while digesting them. This enteric fermentation in their stomachs accounts for around 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions, while the entire aviation industry sits at just 2-3%. If we give them more food that is harder to digest, they'll emit even more methane per animal.

Biofuels make a lot of sense though. After extracting the fuel, the remaining digestate can be used to produce biochar or be put directly on fields as fertilizer, which is nice because synthetic fertilizers account for 1-2% of greenhouse gas emissions.

Another option is to burn the byproducts for heat or electricity in winter during short periods when there's not enough wind and solar power to cover energy demand.

Sea level rise takes a lot of time. The projections I saw were somewhere around 1 m by 2100 and 10 m by 2300, depending on the amount of warming of course. I think hurricanes will be a bigger issue for them in this century.

Damn it

1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering

I don't know, life before the industrial revolution was pretty shit for regular people too.

I'd rather not have to worry about my family (and friends) starving to death during the next famine. 40-60% of children in medival europe died before adulthood. I can't even imagine the psychological suffering caused by this alone. Then there was frequent war and disease outbreaks, basically no healthcare, and so on...

I'm not saying that everything's great nowadays, we urgently need to fix many issues. But many things were way, way worse before modern civilization.

Now, your claim is that Russia started the civil war as a pretext to invade and that the separatists are just Russian proxies. On the other hand, the Russian narrative would claim the same thing about the Euromaidan coup.

I guess most the 400.000 - 800.000 Euromaidan protestors were CIA agents in Russias view then?

It's well known that many people in Eastern European countries don't trust Russia one bit after their experiences in the USSR. Of course there's enormous pushback when politicians in power try to strengthen ties with Putin (and cut ties to EU countries), it would be really weird if there weren't. The same would happen in Poland and many other Eastern European countries who were staunchly anti Putin long before the invasion, even though they don't have an immediate threat from a shared border with Russia.

In my opinion, if people really cared so much about the Ukrainian people, then we should've been providing them with foreign aid for domestic development, long before any of this started.

Before the war, people weren't really aware of the situation in Ukraine and there were 100 other problems that seemed more urgent, so there just wasn't any political pressure to do something.

As far as I can see, it's just about US/Ukrainian state interests vs Russian state interests

Western countries just stood by in the first days and did nothing, as they had no hopes for Ukraine surviving for more than a few days. If the Ukrainian public weren't willing to push back, they would've had no chance to stop the Russian advances and their government would've collapsed in days, just as both Russia and the West predicted.

It would be a better use of funds to accept territorial concessions

Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians fled from the occupied territories, and accepting that they will never get their relatives and homes back will be unthinkable for a large part of them, especially after the reports of forced relocations from occupied regions into Russia (including thousands of children) and all the suffering that Putin has brought upon Ukrainians. Maybe they will reach the point of making concessions if they see no hope of retaking the territory. Ultimately this has to be decided by the Ukrainian people.

You said that they are a reactionary government, but you also implied that their reactionary justification to invade is legitimate.

You said you "don't fully agree" with Russia intervening in the civil war (by shelling kyiv I guess, because theres definitely civil war there). As if they didn't provoke it in the first place to justify their invasion.

I also wouldn't expect people who are criticial of war to say that they "don't fully agree" with Russia waging a war of aggression and commiting mass murder and war crimes in Ukraine, I would expect some actual condemnation of such atrocities.

Yeah, I don't fully agree with their decision to intervene in the Ukrainian civil war

Of course Russia had nothing to do with the war. They would never fund and support the separatists, or spread anti Ukrainian propaganda amongst the Russian speaking population, because Putin loves democracy and just wants the best for everyone, of course. /s

I agree that there's no way around petrochemicals, and we'll have to offset the emissions to reach net 0.

Gas heating has an alternative though. Heat pumps are already cheaper to run compared to gas heating, even without any carbon offsetting.

The pressure to reach net 0 is only gonna grow as the impacts of climate change get worse. To reach net 0 we'll have to offset all significant emissions. When the offsets are priced in, using gas heaters becomes insanely expensive in comparison to heat pumps.

It's just a matter of time until gas heating is essentially dead. It might be in 10 years or 20 years, but there's no way around it.