No, because comparing individual lifestyle choices like diet to systemic issues like fossil fuel consumption doesn’t quite align in terms of impact. Fossil fuels are responsible for 89% of CO2 emissions and 65% of all greenhouse gas emissions globally, whereas all agricultural livestock accounts for around 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. While every bit helps, the scale of change needed to significantly reduce our carbon footprint goes far beyond individual actions—it requires systemic transformation, particularly in how we produce and consume energy [International Energy Agency, 2020; FAO, 2013]. Furthermore, while there are viable alternatives to fossil fuels—such as solar, wind, and hydroelectric power—the same breadth of alternatives doesn’t exist for diet. Enforcing dietary changes can be culturally sensitive and challenging, making it a less feasible solution for rapid global implementation. It’s essential to focus our efforts where the biggest impact can be made, and that’s on reducing dependency on fossil fuels.
The scale of an individuals effect, depends on how many other people do “it”.
As one example, if l was say “No thanks! I’ve brought my own non-plastic bag” to the retailer asking if l want a (plastic) bag, that action didn’t stop that plastic bag from being manufactured.
But, if 90% of people stopped using the retailers plastic bags, that retailer would order less plastic bags.
Scale this up on a population level (& do the math).
The scale of an individuals effect, depends on how many other people do “it”.
As one example, if l was say “No thanks! I’ve brought my own non-plastic bag” to the retailer asking if l want a (plastic) bag, that action didn’t stop that plastic bag from being manufactured.
But, if 90% of people stopped using the retailers plastic bags, that retailer would order less plastic bags.
Scale this up on a population level (& do the math).
They’re referring to the highlighted part.
Removed by mod
No, because comparing individual lifestyle choices like diet to systemic issues like fossil fuel consumption doesn’t quite align in terms of impact. Fossil fuels are responsible for 89% of CO2 emissions and 65% of all greenhouse gas emissions globally, whereas all agricultural livestock accounts for around 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. While every bit helps, the scale of change needed to significantly reduce our carbon footprint goes far beyond individual actions—it requires systemic transformation, particularly in how we produce and consume energy [International Energy Agency, 2020; FAO, 2013]. Furthermore, while there are viable alternatives to fossil fuels—such as solar, wind, and hydroelectric power—the same breadth of alternatives doesn’t exist for diet. Enforcing dietary changes can be culturally sensitive and challenging, making it a less feasible solution for rapid global implementation. It’s essential to focus our efforts where the biggest impact can be made, and that’s on reducing dependency on fossil fuels.
@NegativeInf @Showroom7561 @climate
The scale of an individuals effect, depends on how many other people do “it”.
As one example, if l was say “No thanks! I’ve brought my own non-plastic bag” to the retailer asking if l want a (plastic) bag, that action didn’t stop that plastic bag from being manufactured.
But, if 90% of people stopped using the retailers plastic bags, that retailer would order less plastic bags.
Scale this up on a population level (& do the math).
@NegativeInf @Showroom7561 @climate
The scale of an individuals effect, depends on how many other people do “it”.
As one example, if l was say “No thanks! I’ve brought my own non-plastic bag” to the retailer asking if l want a (plastic) bag, that action didn’t stop that plastic bag from being manufactured.
But, if 90% of people stopped using the retailers plastic bags, that retailer would order less plastic bags.
Scale this up on a population level (& do the math).
Removed by mod