[Continuation] Global warming discussion V

[Cosmic Yak]

It makes a difference, yes, but it is not enough. If everybody did all the things that are being recommended, it still would not be enough. Not unless the energy, construction, agriculture and logistics industries also do their part.

Every single one of these industries is created and run by people. All of their output- products or services- are bought by people. These are not entities divorced from humanity: they are an extension of humanity. If the people who own and operate those industries act, then there will be a benefit. If their shareholders and consumers put pressure on them, they will act. If governments legislate in thast direction, they will act. The actions of all these entities are the result of the actions of individuals acting in concert. If everybody did these things, how could the world not change?

Which is why I have never, even once, said that individuals should not act. In fact, I have said - repeatedly - that they should.

No. You've said they could, but it won't make any difference. That's equivalent to saying they shouldn't, because it's pointless.

Perhaps you're reading what someone else is saying. Because I have not been saying what you're saying I'm saying.

Nope. I've quoted your exact words back at you, and also given my reasons: the consequence of your words would be to discourage anyone from doing anything. I do not subscribe to the fatalistic, gloomy inaction you are advocating.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I think it's more to do with the wish that technology is going to do all the heavy lifting and everyone can just carry on behaving pretty much the same as we've always done.

We need too be realistic. It is madness to argue that everyone should stop driving. My workplace is 40km from my house, out in the desert. Walking or cycling that distance, in 40-50C heat, would literally be life-threatening. Electric cars, OTOH, work, and do not involve digging up an entire university campus and transporting it closer to town.

 

[3point14]

We need too be realistic. It is madness to argue that everyone should stop driving. My workplace is 40km from my house, out in the desert. Walking or cycling that distance, in 40-50C heat, would literally be life-threatening. Electric cars, OTOH, work, and do not involve digging up an entire university campus and transporting it closer to town.

And this is why we're screwed.

I agree, it's madness for you to not drive to work.

It's also madness for you, and everyone else in the same situation, to not stop driving to work.

What we need is infrastructure and circumstances that would make you not driving to work not be a crazy suggestion.

But you can't get there from here...

 

[arthwollipot]

Every single one of these industries is created and run by people. All of their output- products or services- are bought by people. These are not entities divorced from humanity: they are an extension of humanity. If the people who own and operate those industries act, then there will be a benefit. If their shareholders and consumers put pressure on them, they will act. If governments legislate in thast direction, they will act. The actions of all these entities are the result of the actions of individuals acting in concert. If everybody did these things, how could the world not change?

Yeah? How's that been working out so far?

No. You've said they could, but it won't make any difference. That's equivalent to saying they shouldn't, because it's pointless.

I've said exactly the opposite of that. I've said that they should, because it's not pointless, and that it will make the world a better place. I have also said that it's not what will solve global warming. Only industry can do that.

Why are you still having trouble with this? I'm being as clear as I possibly can.

Nope. I've quoted your exact words back at you...

You've quoted my words and then said that I'm saying the opposite of what I'm actually saying. That's dishonest.

...and also given my reasons: the consequence of your words would be to discourage anyone from doing anything. I do not subscribe to the fatalistic, gloomy inaction you are advocating.

Such fatalistic, gloomy inaction is only in your head. I've said that people should do their best to make their world better. I've said it consistently and repeatedly, and you have consistently and repeatedly reported that I'm saying the opposite of that. You should be better. I'm not angry, just disappointed.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

I've said exactly the opposite of that. I've said that they should, because it's not pointless, and that it will make the world a better place. I have also said that it's not what will solve global warming. Only industry can do that.
<snip>

Industry responds to demand. If people stopped "upgrading" tech items like phones and TVs as frequently the environmental damage of those industries would go down.

Where governments need to step in is to stop industry artificially creating demand through planned obsolescence and marketing.

Imagine a world where men didn't buy cars as status symbols, but merely as tools to perform a function. (Not suggesting you do this, BTW)

A world where people asked themselves "why do I want this thing?" before consuming would probably be a lot more sustainable.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Yeah? How's that been working out so far?

Better than you might think. Better than you do think, actually:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/sep/08/producers-keep-sustainable-practices-secret
https://www.construction21.org/arti...e-construction-industry-is-going-greener.html
https://blog.marketresearch.com/5-industries-benefiting-from-going-green
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996922011267

I've said exactly the opposite of that. I've said that they should, because it's not pointless, and that it will make the world a better place. I have also said that it's not what will solve global warming. Only industry can do that.

All you need to do, then, is quote where you said that. Because that's the first time I can remember you saying that.

Why are you still having trouble with this? I'm being as clear as I possibly can.

No, you're not. You haven't been saying what you claim you've been saying, and then complaining that I haven't understood what you are saying, because you didn't say it.

You've quoted my words and then said that I'm saying the opposite of what I'm actually saying. That's dishonest.

Please show where what I've said is the opposite of what you've said. I have pointed out the consequences of following your advice: if you can't accept that, that's not me being dishonest, that's you being unwilling to accept the results of your comments.

Such fatalistic, gloomy inaction is only in your head. I've said that people should do their best to make their world better. I've said it consistently and repeatedly, and you have consistently and repeatedly reported that I'm saying the opposite of that. You should be better. I'm not angry, just disappointed.

Again, please repost where you said that. Because I must have missed these 'repeated' instances.
I'm quite happy to be corrected, but I need the evidence first.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

And this is why we're screwed.

I agree, it's madness for you to not drive to work.

It's also madness for you, and everyone else in the same situation, to not stop driving to work.

What we need is infrastructure and circumstances that would make you not driving to work not be a crazy suggestion.

But you can't get there from here...

Two words: electric cars.

 

[3point14]

Two words: electric cars.

See Ivor's post above.

The problem is that the numbers don't add up. Renewable sources of energy are defuse, so we are going to have to find ways to use a lot less energy along with technological change.

One of the easiest ways to reduce energy usage is to travel less. Every time someone drives somewhere, they're not just spending the energy to move 100Kg of person, they're also moving 1000Kg of car too.

 

[Stout]

Two words: electric cars.

This is where you want to start talking about 15 minute cities, active transportation and referring to roads as car sewers, if you really want to throw down your eco creds.

Anyways, from the BBC link in post #1231

Urgent action to cut carbon emissions can still slow warming, scientists say.

Now that climate scientists have come out and said they want to write policy (at COP 28) maybe they could do us a favour and let us know what this policy they want to write might look like. We've all been patient with this endless Chicken Little routine and I'm sure these guys have spent countless hours hanging around the lab proposing how "we" can actually meet the conditions set out in the Paris Accords.

Urgent action, what does that actually mean in the context of pretty much everything tried to date has been an abysmal failure?

 

[arthwollipot]

All you need to do, then, is quote where you said that. Because that's the first time I can remember you saying that.

Sure. Happy to help.

Sure, doing all these things will make everybody better off...

Yes, personal austerity on an individual level is a good idea. It has benefits.

Do your personal bit, absolutely.

It's not nothing, and it should be done.

There can be a point to doing something that will not save the world. It might make your personal life better. It might help to clean up your local environment. It might encourage others to help.

Just because it's not what will save the world doesn't mean that it isn't still worth doing.

 

[arthwollipot]

Industry responds to demand. If people stopped "upgrading" tech items like phones and TVs as frequently the environmental damage of those industries would go down.

Not the industry I was referring to. As I explained previously...

Unless the oil and gas industry can be shut down, unless we can find new ways of producing steel and concrete (which our civilisation absolutely depends upon) that don't dump billions of tons of CO2, unless we can develop new unpolluting ways of sustaining the global travel and distribution industries that we have become accustomed to, the problem will not go away.

Fortunately, there are those who are working on these problems.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Not the industry I was referring to. As I explained previously...

Unless the oil and gas industry can be shut down, unless we can find new ways of producing steel and concrete (which our civilisation absolutely depends upon) that don't dump billions of tons of CO2, unless we can develop new unpolluting ways of sustaining the global travel and distribution industries that we have become accustomed to, the problem will not go away.

Fortunately, there are those who are working on these problems.

The way to 'shut down' the oil and gas industry is very simple - stop consuming their products.

New ways of producing steel are already being applied.

'Low carbon' concrete is a thing now, reducing its carbon footprint by up to 80%. We can cut back on it too, and recycle. Concrete accounts for 4-8% of CO₂ emissions. That's less some other sources, but everywhere we can reduce it helps.

Global travel? We know what to do there - don't fly!

Distribution industries benefit from cleaner transport too - except when transporting oil and gas.

All this stuff is being addressed as we speak. But it will be much easier if we do our bit by reducing demand.

But will we? That's the real problem. Nobody wants to change their lifestyle no matter how much harm it might be doing. So we push it onto someone else, a convenient scapegoat we can blame for things not getting done.

"Oh no, it's not my fault that oil companies produce petrol for the engine that automakers put in my car! I mean, I would switch to an electric car - but they cost money and don't have the range I might someday need! And now the nasty government is forcing me to buy one!"

You can embrace change and be part of the solution, or resist it and be the problem. Fine. Be a freeloader who expects someone else to pick up the tab, just don't expect any sympathy from me when the **** hits the fan.

 

[arthwollipot]

I refer my esteemed colleague to my previous post #1254 in which I repeat yet again that people should be doing the little things, because they will make a genuine difference.

My point is that we can't just simply shut down these big industries. If we stopped burning all coal tomorrow, the world's electricity grid would be in big trouble. Our civilisation is literally built out of steel and concrete. Shutting these industries down tomorrow would cripple us. Stop flying? Well, I don't think people should be flying everywhere either so I'll give you that. But stop the global shipping industry and you will learn just how much stuff you can't get any more - and it's not just luxuries.

We are learning how to fix these problems, but it's a slow process. We can't just turn our civilisation around on the spot. Meanwhile, keep on practicing personal austerity. Recycle your bottles where that's an option, drive an electric car if you can afford one. Sail to visit your family rather than flying. Or just never travel more than a few miles from where you live, the way humans didn't for centuries.

You won't be saving the world, but you might be making your life and the lives of the people close to you better. And you'll feel good about it.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Sure. Happy to help.

You know, I was about to apologise to you- until I checked the context of those posts you quoted.
All of them- every single one of them- is followed by a caveat saying there's no point, because it won't make any difference.
Which not only was my entire point- that you are discouraging people from taking individual action- it's also rather naughty of you to snip of that all-important context.

 

[arthwollipot]

All of them- every single one of them- is followed by a caveat saying there's no point, because it won't make any difference.

That is an outright lie. You should be ashamed.

What I have said is "it's not what will save the world" which is very different from "there's no point because it won't make any difference".

 

[arthwollipot]

It would be a little bit ridiculous if I said what you're saying I'm saying, which is "Yes you should do it because it's not pointless but also it's pointless". Don't you think?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Now that climate scientists have come out and said they want to write policy (at COP 28) maybe they could do us a favour and let us know what this policy they want to write might look like.

Scientists can't write policy. They can advise politicians on what policy to write, but they can't do it themselves. If politicians don't follow their advice it's because they don't think it's viable or they don't think their constituents will accept it (or they're in the pockets of Big Oil ). Not much scientists can do about that except reiterate the consequences of inaction.

We've all been patient with this endless Chicken Little routine and I'm sure these guys have spent countless hours hanging around the lab proposing how "we" can actually meet the conditions set out in the Paris Accords.

Not all of us have just been sitting on our backsides waiting for someone else to come up with a plan (that we then reject for 'reasons').

Urgent action, what does that actually mean in the context of pretty much everything tried to date has been an abysmal failure?

Not true. A lot of progress has been made. Unfortunately a lot of people are trying to put a spanner in the works - ordinary people who could accelerate progress but are stymieing it instead.

Turns out the most important 'action' needed was getting hearts and minds on the right track. That's the real 'failure' that needs addressing.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

My point is that we can't just simply shut down these big industries. If we stopped burning all coal tomorrow, the world's electricity grid would be in big trouble. Our civilisation is literally built out of steel and concrete. Shutting these industries down tomorrow would cripple us.

Denier talking point #96 - it's too hard.

Nobody's saying we have to do it by tomorrow. But the pace could be a lot faster than it is.

stop the global shipping industry and you will learn just how much stuff you can't get any more - and it's not just luxuries.

I grew up in a time when products took 3 months to get from the UK to New Zealand. It wasn't the end of the World. I wish we could go back to those times, when the pace of life wasn't so hectic and people didn't need instant gratification.

Clipper route

The clipper route was the traditional route derived from the Brouwer Route and sailed by clipper ships between Europe and the Far East, Australia and New Zealand. The route ran from west to east through the Southern Ocean, to make use of the strong westerly winds of the Roaring Forties...

The clipper ships bound for Australia and New Zealand would call at a variety of ports. A ship sailing from Plymouth to Sydney, for example, would cover around 13,750 miles (22,130 km); a fast time for this passage would be around 100 days. Cutty Sark made the fastest passage on this route by a clipper, in 72 days. Thermopylae made the slightly shorter passage from London to Melbourne, 13,150 miles (21,160 km), in just 61 days in 1868–1869.

If they could do it in just 2 months back in 1869, imagine what a modern sailing ship could do!

We are learning how to fix these problems, but it's a slow process.

It's only slow because nobody wants to rock the boat. Our precious economy cannae take it, Captain!

We can't just turn our civilisation around on the spot. Meanwhile, keep on practicing personal austerity. Recycle your bottles where that's an option, drive an electric car if you can afford one. Sail to visit your family rather than flying. Or just never travel more than a few miles from where you live, the way humans didn't for centuries.

That's what I'm doing. BTW my 12 year old second-hand electric car didn't cost any more than a similar gas car.

Now that we have the internet it's a lot easier to stay in touch without having to make long trips. Back in the 1960s our relatives would visit us once a year. The trip was a pretty big deal. Occasionally we would ring them and have to shout into the phone due to the losses over that distance (360km). These days people won't buy a car if it can't do it at 120km/h all the way without stopping (reason #2 why they will never buy an EV).

You won't be saving the world, but you might be making your life and the lives of the people close to you better. And you'll feel good about it.

Not by myself no, but if many others followed my example we would.

 

[arthwollipot]

Not by myself no, but if many others followed my example we would.

My point is, unless capitalistic industry joins in, no you wouldn't.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

My point is, unless capitalistic industry joins in, no you wouldn't.

Is your argument that consumers are slaves to industry? I have some sympathy with that line of reasoning;. The choices consumers have are somewhat limited by what the market has on offer.

 

[Aridas]

Is your argument that consumers are slaves to industry? I have some sympathy with that line of reasoning;. The choices consumers have are somewhat limited by what the market has on offer.

One could also point out how capitalistic marketing is pretty explicitly about increasing consumption and immense amounts of capital and effort are invested into making that happen. The consumers are not blameless when it comes to that angle, of course, but it's not particularly reasonable to blame the consumers while also selectively ignoring major underlying drivers for that consumption.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

It would be a little bit ridiculous if I said what you're saying I'm saying, which is "Yes you should do it because it's not pointless but also it's pointless". Don't you think?

OK. Look. I have little interest in going over the same posts again and again, while we argue about whether you said what you said, or not.
How about this? From your later clarifications, it would seem that this is what you actually are trying to say:
One person acting alone to select choices that are more sustainable and better for the environment will not have a big effect. That will only happen if enough people make those choices. The only way to get from not enough people to enough people is if individuals start to make those changes themselves. The cumulative effect will be to effect useful, measurable changes on a global scale.
How does that sound? Can we agree on this?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

One could also point out how capitalistic marketing is pretty explicitly about increasing consumption and immense amounts of capital and effort are invested into making that happen. The consumers are not blameless when it comes to that angle, of course, but it's not particularly reasonable to blame the consumers while also selectively ignoring major underlying drivers for that consumption.

I often wonder who are worse: the people who make harmful products, or the ones ("creatives") who try to convince people to buy the products by making them appear healthy, fun, stylish, sophisticated and/or environmentally friendly.

Forget Oppenheimer, the true destroyers of worlds are the people who work for ad agencies.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Here's some information arthwollipot may find interesting:

Technology can provide energy efficiency measures that help combat climate change, but “consumption (and to a lesser extent population) growth have mostly outrun any beneficial effects of changes in technology over the past few decades,” according to a June paper. The research concluded that it is not enough simply to “green” consumption by buying more sustainably produced goods—it is essential to reduce consumption. This is because 45 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions comes solely from the production of the things we use and buy every day.

That's the elephant in the room that NO politician is going to talk about.

I wonder how many perfectly functional PCs are going to end up being dumped because they're "not ready" for Windows 11? Will this be counted in Microsoft's environmental footprint? To be fair the whole technology industry is as bad.

Many years ago I read an article in an electronics magazine with a title something like "The Logarithmic Law of Usefulness". The premise of the article was that linear improvements in usability of items are correlated with an exponential increase in the complexity of the underlying technology.

A great example of the correlation between linear usability improvement and exponential increase in complexity is a manual switch compared to a smart switch to control a bulb (or other appliance).

A manual switch needs some plastic and metal, will last decades and function 100% reliably. Alas, with a manual switch you can't turn your hall light on and off from the other side of the planet without phoning your butler.

A smart switch is typically implemented in a way that needs several processors running (tens of?) thousands of lines of code and often a (cloud-based) server. It will turn the appliance on and off with a reliability somewhere between 50-95%, but require you to upgrade your phone eventually because an update to the 200 megabyte-sized lightswitch app will only work with Android version 100 and newer. After a few years the company may discontinue the cloud part of the service making the product either useless or severely limiting its functionality. There are ways around this last problem (Z-Wave / Zigbee sticks, Home Assistant running on a local machine, etc.), but most are beyond the technical capabilities, interest and spare time of most of the population who just want to turn some lights on and off. They will either go back to a manual switch or be suckered into buying the next greatest smart product that still doesn't work reliably because even the people who created it don't understand how all its parts work.

 

[Stout]

Scientists can't write policy. They can advise politicians on what policy to write, but they can't do it themselves. If politicians don't follow their advice it's because they don't think it's viable or they don't think their constituents will accept it (or they're in the pockets of Big Oil ). Not much scientists can do about that except reiterate the consequences of inaction.

Scientists want to write policy though. See here. It sure would be nice to see what that policy would look like given their constant warnings about needing urgent action.

Five lead authors of IPCC reports told the Guardian that scientists should be given the right to make policy prescriptions and, potentially, to oversee their implementation by the 195 states signed up to the UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC).

No doubt you're right about the politicians and their constituents not wanting to accept it, after all, their political careers are on the line so all they need do is talk the talk. I want to see what walking the talk would look like and climate scientests have nothing to lose here. I've seen it said (paraphrased) When climate scientists start living like there's a climate conference, then maybe we'll start listening to them.

I'd be interested to see Michael Mann's carbon footprint.

Turns out the most important 'action' needed was getting hearts and minds on the right track. That's the real 'failure' that needs addressing.

Yes, this is what I've been saying all along and it's a direct result of, to put it charitably clumsy climate activism. Locally, we spent millions of dollars closing streets and making elevated, protected bike lanes (all ages and abilities) complete with those cute little bicycle traffic lights and here we are, a few later asking ourselves...Whare are all the bicycles? By the way the public got behind this idea at the proposal stage this place should look like Amsterdam now hoverer I'm still seeing 200 cars for every bicycle.

 

[Stout]

I wonder how many perfectly functional PCs are going to end up being dumped because they're "not ready" for Windows 11? Will this be counted in Microsoft's environmental footprint? To be fair the whole technology industry is as bad.

I just did this a few months ago. Not due to not giving a rip about Windows 11, the machines were running on Windows 7 just fine, but because they were slow. New Lenovos with 8th generation chips were on sale so off to the recycling depot with the old ones, which were 10+ year old all-in-ones and hello new everything. That's on me, I probably could have squeezed even more years out of them but they're with God now.

I have smart thermostats. I didn't buy them they came with the place and after spending an hour researching how to use them I came to the conclusion I really didn't care. I just use them like manual thermostats and if they cease to function then I'll just replace them with manual ones.

I've been seeing these smart lightbulbs in Home Depot and rather than buying one and having to keep my phone on me at all times I'll just stay with my tried and true, Clapper.

Oh Christ, now I have clap on, clap off running through my head.

 

[arthwollipot]

Is your argument that consumers are slaves to industry? I have some sympathy with that line of reasoning;. The choices consumers have are somewhat limited by what the market has on offer.

I would not have put it in those terms. Our civilisation absolutely depends on carbon intensive capitalistic industry to function. Not only is there little incentive for that to change, because, well, capitalism, but the possibility of change is limited due to society's dependence on those industries for energy, food, transport and infrastructure.

Yes, society is slowly developing less carbon intensive ways to provide these services. It's slow, but this is what will save the world, if anything will.

 

[arthwollipot]

OK. Look. I have little interest in going over the same posts again and again, while we argue about whether you said what you said, or not.
How about this? From your later clarifications, it would seem that this is what you actually are trying to say:
One person acting alone to select choices that are more sustainable and better for the environment will not have a big effect. That will only happen if enough people make those choices. The only way to get from not enough people to enough people is if individuals start to make those changes themselves. The cumulative effect will be to effect useful, measurable changes on a global scale.
How does that sound? Can we agree on this?

No, we can't, because you're still ignoring humans' dependence on industry. Without decarbonising industry, gains will be in no way fast or consistent enough to ultimately save the world. What it will do is slow down disaster, perhaps for long enough to give society time to solve the bigger problems.

 

[arthwollipot]

Here's some information arthwollipot may find interesting:

Indeed I do, and 45% is a bigger proportion than I have seen estimated previously (estimates vary according to the source). But even 45% is still not enough.

 

[novaphile]

Scientists want to write policy though. See here. It sure would be nice to see what that policy would look like given their constant warnings about needing urgent action.



No doubt you're right about the politicians and their constituents not wanting to accept it, after all, their political careers are on the line so all they need do is talk the talk. I want to see what walking the talk would look like and climate scientests have nothing to lose here. I've seen it said (paraphrased) When climate scientists start living like there's a climate conference, then maybe we'll start listening to them.

I'd be interested to see Michael Mann's carbon footprint.



Yes, this is what I've been saying all along and it's a direct result of, to put it charitably clumsy climate activism. Locally, we spent millions of dollars closing streets and making elevated, protected bike lanes (all ages and abilities) complete with those cute little bicycle traffic lights and here we are, a few later asking ourselves...Whare are all the bicycles? By the way the public got behind this idea at the proposal stage this place should look like Amsterdam now hoverer I'm still seeing 200 cars for every bicycle.

You will probably see more if you ride yourself.

Car drivers frequently say that they can't see/didn't see the cyclist.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Scientists want to write policy though. See here.

Some scientists. And who can blame them? But they can want all they like, they won't get it.

An IPCC spokesperson said: “It is important to note that the IPCC assessments are policy relevant but not policy prescriptive: they may present projections of future climate change based on different scenarios and the risks that climate change poses and discuss the implications of response options, but they do not tell policymakers what actions to take.”

It sure would be nice to see what that policy would look like given their constant warnings about needing urgent action.

That could be interesting - but outside their field of expertise so I'm not sure how useful it would be.

No doubt you're right about the politicians and their constituents not wanting to accept it, after all, their political careers are on the line so all they need do is talk the talk.

Democracy, the worst form of government - apart from all the rest.

I'd be interested to see Michael Mann's carbon footprint.

I don't care what Michael Mann's carbon footprint is. I do care about motivating the population as a whole into reducing our carbon footprint. At least he has managed to achieve some small progress there.

Climate scientist Michael Mann wins defamation case against conservative writers

After a day of deliberations, the jury ruled that Simberg and Steyn defamed Mann through some of their statements. The compensatory damages were just $1 for each writer. But the punitive damages were larger. The jury ordered Simberg to pay Mann $1,000 in punitive damages; it ordered Steyn to pay $1 million in punitive damages.

"I don't think there's been anything like it. There's never been a case like this," says Kert Davies, director of special investigations at the Center for Climate Integrity, a climate accountability nonprofit. "No one has ever taken the climate deniers to court like this."

Davies says while this ruling may not impact anonymous attackers online, the liability verdict and the dollar figure of this judgment may deter more public figures from attacks on climate scientists. "It may keep them in check"

 

[The Atheist]

Nothing to see here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68228943

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Indeed I do, and 45% is a bigger proportion than I have seen estimated previously (estimates vary according to the source). But even 45% is still not enough.

Wrong stat. This the one you want:-

While large oil companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron are the biggest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions, we consumers are complicit. We demand the products and energy made from the fossil fuels they provide. One scientist found that 90 percent of fossil fuel companies’ emissions are a result of the products made from fossil fuels.

Think about it. Why are our highways clogged with vehicles? People aren't just driving from A to B for kicks. They are traveling to and from work, or transporting goods. And what do they do at work? Make products, or buy and sell them, or service the facilities that do it. If we weren't making and consuming all those products, none of that activity would be necessary.

During Covid lockdowns people worked from home or just did nothing. The result was empty roads and skies, and a dramatic drop in energy consumption. Yet strangely nobody starved. We still got what we needed to live on with a minimum of essential workers. This proves that we could do it if we set our minds to it. Unfortunately the virus wasn't fatal enough...

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Nothing to see here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68228943

Exactly. This is nothing new - these fires have always occurred.

These fires are not unusual. In the past 10 years, British Columbia has, on average, seen five or six that continue to burn during the cold months, experts say.

But in January, the province saw an unprecedented peak of 106 active zombie fires

Only 20 times more fires than usual!

Canada is too cold anyway. A few fires will help warm the place up a bit. And CO₂, did you know it makes plants grow? With all these wildfires burning trees, we need more growth!

 

[arthwollipot]

Think about it. Why are our highways clogged with vehicles? People aren't just driving from A to B for kicks. They are traveling to and from work, or transporting goods. And what do they do at work? Make products, or buy and sell them, or service the facilities that do it. If we weren't making and consuming all those products, none of that activity would be necessary.

Plastics, mostly. And do you think that our civilisation can end its absolute dependence on plastics any time soon? Let alone soon enough to halt and reverse warming? Do you think that individuals, working independently of each other, can do that?

Oh ****, I've just turned this into yet another individualism vs. collectivism debate.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

No, we can't, because you're still ignoring humans' dependence on industry. Without decarbonising industry, gains will be in no way fast or consistent enough to ultimately save the world. What it will do is slow down disaster, perhaps for long enough to give society time to solve the bigger problems.

Well, that's a shame. I thought maybe we could come to some sort of amicable agreement. However, as you wish...
Firstly, then, you are ignoring my point that industry is not some separate entity in itself: it is made of people. It involves stakeholders. It is subject to government regulations. It is subject to market forces. Each one of these influences is composed of groups of people. Each group is composed of individuals. If those individuals exert enough pressure, from consumers to shareholders to company directors to governments, then industry will change.
I am also a little puzzled by your flip-flopping on whether or not industry is changing. You doubted it: I posted links showing this was happening, and you later acknowledged it yourself. Now you appear to be going back to saying it isn't changing. Do you mean 'not changing at all', or 'not changing enough', or what? I am genuinely confused.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Plastics, mostly. And do you think that our civilisation can end its absolute dependence on plastics any time soon? Let alone soon enough to halt and reverse warming? Do you think that individuals, working independently of each other, can do that?

Oh ****, I've just turned this into yet another individualism vs. collectivism debate.

No-one has said that individuals alone can effect change. You really need to be clearer on this, because it looks like your position changes from hour to hour.
Now, about plastics:
77 countries have banned plastic bags.
https://www.statista.com/chart/14120/the-countries-banning-plastic-bags/
The EU has banned the top 10 most common types of single-use plastic items.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/scienc...an-kicks-europes-plastic-purge-into-high-gear
More initiatives from around the world to reduce the use of plastic:
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/plastic-waste-government-initiatives/

Then, of course, we have the choice as consumers to stop buying single-use plastic goods, to reuse or recycle the plastic we need, to pressure our respective governments to do more, to join environmental groups....
Plenty to be hopeful about. If you want to be hopeful. Plenty we can do as individuals, too.

 

[The Atheist]

And CO₂, did you know it makes plants grow?

The really funny part about CO2 is that it makes people dumber.

https://airqualitynews.com/health/co2-affects-human-health-at-lower-levels-than-previously-thought/

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

No-one has said that individuals alone can effect change. You really need to be clearer on this, because it looks like your position changes from hour to hour.
Now, about plastics:
77 countries have banned plastic bags.
https://www.statista.com/chart/14120/the-countries-banning-plastic-bags/
The EU has banned the top 10 most common types of single-use plastic items.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/scienc...an-kicks-europes-plastic-purge-into-high-gear
More initiatives from around the world to reduce the use of plastic:
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/plastic-waste-government-initiatives/

Then, of course, we have the choice as consumers to stop buying single-use plastic goods, to reuse or recycle the plastic we need, to pressure our respective governments to do more, to join environmental groups....
Plenty to be hopeful about. If you want to be hopeful. Plenty we can do as individuals, too.

I think all types of bag, plastic, hemp, whatever, at the point of sale in all shops should be banned, or at least very expensive. Consider it a basic educational programme for adults to plan what they need to do the task they have set out to do.

 

[Stout]

You will probably see more if you ride yourself.

Car drivers frequently say that they can't see/didn't see the cyclist.

Former hardcore cycle commuter here. I'm actively looking for them.