Agreed that the people in charge do nothing and don't understand the problem.

However, the people in charge (e.g. in France) are elected by the people, and therefore represent it. Do you think that the far-right will care more about the climate crisis? The French people is likely to elect them next year.

It's too easy to vote for people who don't give a shit about the climate crisis, and then blame them.

> either way we're fucked, the point of no return is behind us now

The faster and the harder we react, the more we save. Fires are a good example: because many trees are burning now (therefore they are already dead) and many trees will burn (because the fire won't magically stop), it's worth fighting to preserve as much as we can. Saying "we won't get those dead trees back, so we may as well let the rest of the forest burn" is counter-productive.

We need to act now. And not by electing morons and then blaming them for being morons.

▲

toasty228 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Do you think that the far-right will care more about the climate crisis?

Far right, far left, far center, it's all the same: money, power, money, power, stay in the EU, free market, money, power.

▲

palata 3 days ago | parent [-]

People could vote for candidates who care. They just don't.

▲

toasty228 2 days ago | parent [-]

Nobody cares enough, they all like the status quo, unless you want to vote for insane royalists &co

▲

palata 2 days ago | parent [-]

I said "people who care about the climate emergency", where did you see "royalists & co"?

▲

toasty228 2 days ago | parent [-]

Who are they? They all are for growth, increased productivity, increase standard of living, global commerce races to the bottom

They want to keep everything exactly the same but somehow stamp it "green"

	▲	palata 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Because they are those that get elected. People just have to vote for those who are not for growth.

▲

andsoitis 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> We need to act now.

What does this look like, precisely, in practice?

▲

adrianN 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

The people here maintain a list of things: https://drawdown.org/explorer

Chiefly we need to replace fossil fuels with electricity from carbon free sources and electrify transportation, heating, and industry.

	▲	andsoitis 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> Chiefly we need to replace fossil fuels with electricity from carbon free sources and electrify transportation, heating, and industry. That's happening. For instance, China now generates less than half its energy from coal for the first time, as reported earlier today: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-generates-less...

▲

palata 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

First, we have to accept the facts:

* CO2 emissions are screwing the climate, and CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels. We need to stop using fossil fuels.

* Our way of life depends on fossil fuels. In some cases it's obvious (we transport food in trucks that need oil), but it's too easy to believe that we may replace that with electricity. It's a lot more complicated than that: everything depends on petrochemical products. How do you transport food without plastics? How do you build electronics without petrochemical products (the PCBs need them, for one)? Without electronics, how do you manage solar panels?

* We don't necessarily have to go back to the Middle-Age: first we probably couldn't: we are way too many for that, and second we know a lot more than they did.

But overall, we will have to do a lot less with a lot less. We have to think about what's fundamental, and how we want to preserve it. I'm not saying "choose between a new game console or a new smartphone every two years instead of having both". I'm saying "do you want to preserve some nature? Produce enough food for everybody? Keep some kind of democratic system?".

Of course, it's too much, we cannot do everything that we need, and we won't be able to preserve everything that we want. We need to accept it and start prioritising.

Overall, I would say that a good first step would be to get informed about how bad it is. There are enough books and resources about that. The people need to be informed in order to elect informed people. Too many don't give a shit, spend their free time on TikTok and then blame the ruling class.

▲

andsoitis 3 days ago | parent [-]

> we will have to do a lot less with a lot less.

What do you mean by this?

	▲	palata 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Degrowth. Either by choice (degrow as fast as we can to preserve the climate) or not (degrow because we have passed the peak of production of fossil fuels and just don't have enough energy anymore). We will have less energy, therefore less globalisation, fewer machines, fewer resources, whether we want it or not. We won't be able to keep producing as much as we do now. So we will have less, and we will produce less. The game is to find a way to do it without collapsing entirely. And the longer we wait, the harder it will get (because the climate will get worse and there will be less and less available fossil fuels to help the transition).

▲

toasty228 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Find the closest maths teacher with a polish last name and ask them