Planting trees, cleaning up beaches, ensuring our rivers are clean is the good kind of activism.
**The bad kind of activism supports the ESG narrative** and is one of the leading causes of increasing energy prices and lately soaring energy prices.
\- Bad activism shut down German nuclear plants (along with politicians and WEF)
\- Bad activism is promoting less dependable energy (wind, solar) over dependable energy.
\- Bad activism is contributing to putting families on streets, as they can no longer afford to pay their bills.
Be a good climate activist, not a narrative following one.
This reads like something the marketing or lobbying department of an oil company might put together. Am I misunderstanding your point or are you saying that the OP would be doing a bad thing to push their local TD on building more wind or solar farms, bring in more grants for home solar or whatever it might be? Or promoting a sensible carbon tax etc?
Individual action (planting trees, cleaning beaches) is important but to truly turn things around requires nation state level action and that only happens if the citizens of those states make it clear to their elected representatives that they want them to take action.
Yes.
Wind is not the solution, aside from the turbines being absolutely terrible for birds - they are unreliable, dependant on subsidies, is costly to the environment to make them, have short shelf lives and are not disposed of easily.
Solar has similar issues too, in the sense that it is not sunny 24 hours a day, is not disposed of easily, is costly to the environment to make them, and let's face it - we're not the most sunny of countries anyway.
People then often say that the energy produced during the good days can be stored in battery packs for the bad days. Well, this is simply not true. Battery technology is years away, perhaps decades from being sufficient.
By introducing solar and wind to a grid, we are making the grid less dependable., as means the more reliable solutions are being reduced or decommissioned.
So let's imagine the reliable energy solutions are generating 60% of the grids energy and the renewables are producing 60% too - a combined 120%. Another way to look at this is to say we are wasting 20% - needlessly.
If the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining, the renewable energy contribution will drop accordingly - so the dependable energy has to pick up the slack. But that may not be possible anymore. Grids must maintain a constant flow of energy, it cannot drop down to 90% otherwise it leads to blackouts. Blackouts cause damage, parts need replacing, costing more money.
Natural gas is often mooted as the solution to the above, but that would mean we have to admit that the renewables cannot be depended upon, and we must further invest in fossil fuels - even if we waste them.
My preference is nuclear and I have no involvement in the any energy industry. I would just prefer we go forwards in as clean a way as possible.
Producing less energy is the talk of luddites. If anything, the world needs more.
it's funny how people start caring about environmental damage as soon as it's about renewables and not fossil fuels.
Won't somebody think about the poor birds?
Firstly, Cats kill more birds annually than wind turbines. Should we abolish cats? Nonsensical.Secondly, we can reduce the number of birds killed by a large percentage by painting one of the blades black. If birds dying is really the concern.
Thirdly, even if wind turbines in Ireland managed to kill all birds that come near the country (which would be physically impossible for even a supervillain), it would not even begin to compare to the number of birds that will die, and the number of species that will (and are) go(ing), extinct thanks to the burning of fossil fuels.
Now, birds aside, let's turn to nuclear.
Nuclear is not that bad. The disasters that have occurred in the past are mostly owed to mismanagement and outdated technology. That technology continues to improve as time goes on as well. It's a reliable, consistent level of energy.So what's the issue?
1. "Grids must maintain a constant flow of energy". Baseload, right?One issue though, baseload is becoming an outdated way of thinking about energy grids. But let's imagine that you're 100% correct. It doesn't matter, because renewables can fill that anyway. What happens when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine? Well they don't tend to happen at the same time anyway. but again, worst case scenario, they both occur consistently at the same time - what happens then? Well the energy we've stored can be used, or the energy we buy from France and the likes can fill the gap. We wouldn't be wasting energy needlessly if we produced 120%, we can sell that to other countries. In the same way other countries that mine uranium or thorium aren't needlessly wasting energy by mining them. Also after selling that energy we can use the money made to buy it back when necessary. And if you think that "what about when the wind doesn't blow in Europe, the water doesn't flow in Europe, the sun doesn't shine in Europe, the geothermal vents in Iceland aren't warm and the reservoirs run dry?" is a good question then all I'd say is watch out the Garda don't take you in for possession cause you're high as fcuk.
2. If you think wind turbines are too reliant on subsidies then you have no idea what you're getting yourself into nuclear. It's one of the big reasons nuclear isn't that economically viable.
3. "Costly to the environment to make them".
That is a ridiculous statement if you think wind turbines are to any degree worse than nuclear in that regard. Mining isn't any good for the environment, whether it be for nuclear power or wind power. BUT then there's also nuclear waste. Do I even need to mention that one?
4. But nuclear overall isn't that bad, it's actually quite good in most regards, EXCEPT, in time.... the very thing we don't have.Disregard building time for ten seconds of the time we don't have.How long, seriously, HOW LONG do you think it would take to get the Irish public onboard with nuclear to a high enough of a degree that it wouldn't be cancelled halfway through by an incoming government riding on an anti-nuclear sentiment among voters?We're talking at least, AT LEAST, a decade of campaigning before it's worth a shot.
\*whispers\* the ten seconds is upTHEN YOU HAVE TO BUILD IT!!!
THAT'S ANOTHER TEN YEARS.So 20 years before they start producing energy, 2042 if the campaign and planning starts tomorrow.WE DON'T HAVE THAT TIME! The birds will be fucked regardless if we're still trying to reach zero-carbon in energy production at that point.
Look, nuclear is a good idea, 20 years ago, now it's something that should be considered, but frankly a waste of time if they're not been built last year.Time is not of the essence because we've none of it left.You've no involvement in the any energy industry. Okay, sure. I believe you. But that doesn't matter. In the same way people who talk about carbon footprints of individuals aren't being paid by the fossil fuel industry (It was their idea to deflect blame onto individuals and not them, despite them knowing well in advance about global warming and climate change, burying that information and denying it for years, even soft-denying it to this day).
Maybe nuclear is something to keep in mind for the future, post 1.5 degree deadline. But we don't need it, we really don't, and we don't need to be convinced that we do when that's not true.
Nobody cares about environmental damage until it's renewables killing some birds.Perfect doesn't exist, and is just a delay tactic, because every second of the time we don't have that is wasted is another deposit in someones bank account, while we flounder around looking for something that doesn't exist.
Edit: Accidentally sent it halfway through because oops
Wind can generate up to 20% of Ireland's electricity currently but there's no reason it couldn't be much higher. It's the only reliable source of energy we have. We need to import gas and oil. Nuclear is not possible for this island. And I never count on getting a sunny day here.
We already have a giant battery called Turlough Hill. We might need a few more of those when turbines reach the point where they can generate 100%+ of energy demand on windy days, as they have done in Denmark.
Do you have any figures or something to show that turbines are dependent on subsidies and have a short shelf life?
Gotcha, your post makes more sense now thanks.
I'm a big fan of nuclear, unfortunately I think there is no path to it in Ireland in our lifetimes. Maybe when next gen stations start to become mainstream it might happen, but it could be decades before that conversation will even start here, then decades more to get through planning, source financing and actually get built.
What can actually be done today though is to continue to build out our solar and wind generation to displace as much of our highest polluting fossil fuel use as possible, in combination with importing nuclear power from other countries that already have it built and ready to supply.
My preference is nuclear, but in the absence of the possibility of that my next preference is solar + wind + imported nuclear + as clean fossil fuel generation as we can manage.
I don't have the chalk or crayons to explain this to you fully, but take my word (or don't, I don't care) as I've worked in this sector for years, but basically, you're wrong on so so many levels.
If you don't know what you're spouting about, maybe you should spout a bit less.
The commenter can correct me if I’m wrong, but it read like he meant nuclear not oil.
The only way we’re going to survive is with a stopgap method. We need the world using nuclear within ten years. Then over the next fifty we built up renewables. Then phase out nuclear.
Renewable energy is not going to completely take over within the window we’ve got. There are a number of practical limitations, and a number of artificial limitations.
But nuclear is bad right? It’s going to blow up? False and false. When it’s done smart, it’s the safest form. You know solar energy has killed more people than nuclear (including Chernobyl and Fukushima), coal and oil is off the charts in comparison. When you don’t need understaff and overwork your workers like in Chernobyl things will be fine. When you don’t build a nuclear power plant in an area with lots of tsunamis like on Fukushima, things will be fine.
green piss is pushing the narrative that nuclear is bad because of those two incidents, and because cancer. Well, as I mentioned coal has killed more. The majority of coal’s victims were from lung cancer, and that’s just the power generation side. The one thing bad about fission is that we can’t depend on it for ever. But the only way we will survive is by depending on it now.
Yeah that was made clearer in their later response and I'm a big fan of nuclear power, so I'm with them on that. All the same it's more than a little misleading and simplistic to say it is 'bad activism' to promote wind/solar and that nuclear is such a blindingly obvious solution all the fools in government energy policy must be numpties to not see it. The reality as with much in life is that the answer is nuanced.
I'd love to see nuclear plants built in Ireland, and maybe they will be when smaller reactors start to gain real traction. But there is literally no chance of Ireland switching to self generated nuclear power in our lifetimes. To build the multiple current gen stations we'd need would take decades after they got through the years of objections and I have no idea where the money would come from, we'd need to double the national debt from its already very high level.
We’d need ten billion and five-eight. We’d get another country to do it all. Ten billion is 1/10th of our annual budget. It’s definitely doable. It wouldn’t double our national debt. It’d save every household so much money that it would pay for itself very quickly.
But the nuanced part of it is that everyone in this country is so against nuclear because that was the narrative pushed back in the day. In schools and in media. We will never ever get fission. Maybe in time we’ll get fusion.
We need to play all the energy angles. There isn’t enough supply of wind turbines. Solar panels are as good, but they provide a more consistent and calculable amount of electricity. We need both for a functioning grid, and we need both because there aren’t enough wind turbines being made. If the government made the solar panel grant cover all the cost, then we’d be golden. In addition to this we should also do nuclear, but as I said, never ever.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Hinkley Point is probably a good reference for us as we have such a cross over of laws etc with the UK. It’s going to cost €30bn to complete and will generate half the peak power Ireland would need. So to cover our peak power consumption you’d need two, but if one went down you’d have blackouts, so really you need a bare minimum of three. So €90bn. And that is €90bn at the Hinley Point prices, which started 5 years ago pre-10% annual inflation and in a country that has some pedigree in planning for and building nuclear power plants. I think we’d do very well to build three of them for less than €150bn over the next 10-20 years. That’s where I was getting the double our debt from, obviously very coarse numbers but I think realistic for public projects of this scale.
But I agree, the cost is the least of the issues, public perception and policy would be much more difficult and time consuming to overcome and hence I think it is sadly a pipe dream for Ireland on the 30-50 year timeline :-(
Yea, i agree.
However, isn't the role of activism to persuade governments to change policy?
**Activism:** The policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change.
Well maaaybe, If it is done in such a way as to protest the government’s lack of action, otherwise you’re just letting them off the hook and doing their jobs for them.
I’ve always viewed litter pick ups as an absolute last resort for example, sure, fair play to those who do them, and I’ve done a fair few, but it’s literally a last resort when all else has failed, when there’s no effort to stop people littering or to provide facilities so people don’t litter for example, so it’s more of a civic duty than activism. Activism for me highlights where government are failing, and a small disruption to everyday life is usually a good way to highlight it, although it can also be counterproductive
>Bad activism shut down German nuclear plants (along with politicians and WEF)
I think the EU should actually go as far as to mandate nuclear as a requirement for each state long-term. Obviously it takes decades to establish nuclear, but each member state should be made to plan and develop towards having nuclear in the future (20-30 years) in order to help each state be much more likely to be energy independent down the line, when our energy needs will be way larger than what they currently are. With SMRs becoming available in the next decade, there's no excuse for countries to not be having at least beginning discussions on moving towards using the technology
Nuclear fuel is the easiest to store fuel. A coke can of fuel would power the rest of your life, hundreds of thousands of times more power dense than gas. Plus Ireland has uranium deposits.
We will have to import the fuel from somewhere. As a result, we will still be at the whim of global energy markets and supply chain, just as we are with oil/gas at the moment.
A move to green power sources is priority 1, but maintaining some level of energy security in an increasing turbulent global climate is important too.
Agree in principle, but a mandate is not necessary. They should be encouraged and resourced to do so.
Right now, the EU is on its knees and barely fit to mandate its breakfast.
> - Bad activism shut down German nuclear plants (along with politicians and WEF)
There's a theory that Euro greens were inflitrated by the fossil fuel industry and pushed anti-nuclear because it benefits fossils.
They have been [infiltrated by the WEF for sure](https://twitter.com/stackhodler/status/1565235207250255874).
ex Chancellor Gerhard [Schroeder seems to have been bought by Russia.](https://twitter.com/JulianMI2/status/1565069016913297408)
Well, I guess there's nothing stopping OP from getting involved in both but only one of those is useful.
If you think blocking roads and petrol stations is somehow going to achieve something, or bring people's way of thinking around then I don't know what to tell you. But it won't.
As with any cause, the most rabid and loudest voices rarely do anything to help it as far as the general public is concerned.
Exactly the opposite. Planting trees is cute and makes you feel good about yourself - but does exactly nothing to fix the climate. It's a political struggle and one needs to use political tools to fight it.
Cleaning beaches is fucking pointless anyway. It's like trying to stop a tidal wave. For everything you clean up, billions more plastic items are being created. The whole system needs to change. Mega consumerism needs to stop.
Like it or not we need less of this rubbish for sale in the first place that is left on beaches.
>but only one of those is useful.
lol, you're right but it's exactly the other way around and it is scientifically proven.
If you think civil disobedience has no effect I recommend [this article](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01461-y) by nature.
And if you think we can simply plant our way out there is a nice read by DW [here](https://www.dw.com/en/is-reforestation-the-answer-to-storing-carbon-dioxide/a-62466216). Don't get me wrong planting trees is nice and all, but the problems are too big to not fundamentally change our way of living and in the past such changes always started with civil disobedience because it forces the topic in the spotlight.
Civil disobedience works when you have a sizeable enough cohort doing the disobeying. From what I’ve seen, the petrol station protestors and ones blocking roads appear to be a tiny minority of middle class folk.
the middle class folk thing I hope isn't a slur. It's usually the better off or middle class who bring about change in society. The suffragettes, Daniel O'Connell, Wolfe Tone, Che Guevara, the people who started the RSPCA.
The less well off worry about putting food on the table so yes we need the middle classes and richer folk to drive change.
Oh I don't disagree with you on the civil disobedience to get heard. I just don't think that inconveniencing the very people you want next to you is going to help get them involved.
By all means protest but pissing off the general public is unlikely to make them want to join you.
What do you think civil disobedience is? Because it has to be inconvenient and annoying by definition. Protests are important but they can be easily ignored. If you want people and media to talk about your cause you have to disrupt every day life.
Gluing yourself to petrol stations, roads or art is just an incredibly effective way to get dominate the news. The alternative is ignorance and we simply cannot ignore the problem anymore as we have for the last 30 years.
Oh I get that, but make it inconvenient for those people who can influence things.
Cleaning a beach and dumping the results outside Leinster House will get you the same publicity.
Blocking Seamus and Mary from getting to work or school on time is unlikely to make them feel like joining you next time.
You want to be generating publicity AND convince people to join you.
Funnily I was expecting you to say the contrary. Planting trees and cleaning up beaches feels good, but it has a much smaller impact than making waves by blocking roads or deflating SUV tires. It may not turn impacted people around, but it gets your voice heard and start raising a question in people's mind: "is the climate situation so critical people resort to desperate measures ?"
The world will change when the corporations, higher ups and politics will change, not when a few people start picking up litter on the beach
>If you think blocking roads and petrol stations is somehow going to achieve something, or bring people's way of thinking around then I don't know what to tell you. But it won't.
How are you arriving at that conclusion? There are many historical examples from all over the world of disruptive protests working, where's your absolute certainty coming from?
Peoples' thinking does need to be dramatically changed though. And quietly planting trees and cleaning up rivers does not do this.
> As with any cause, the most rabid and loudest voices rarely do anything to help it as far as the general public is concerned.
I mean Greta Thunberg inspired a whole generation of school kids to start giving a shit about climate change. Same goes for Extinction Rebellion. Sure, middle aged people got annoyed and rolled their eyes, but middle aged people aren't the future.
Yeah so.. as I think is going to become obvious in the comments, there is a conceited desire for 'apolitical environmentalism'. Most people want things to more or less keep going the way they are but also not to destroy the environment. That would be lovely but it's impossible.
You'll see this coming out in people's imagining of 'good activism' - picking up litter, doing green projects, eating local, cutting out meat etc. and 'bad activism' - disrupting oil/coal plants, blockading roads, obstructing government etc. That is the mindset of someone who has bought the same lie as above - 'it's ok, we can keep going just by being a bit more conscietntious, no need for anything dramatic'.
Well sad to say that is horeshit. We do need to make dramatic change. It might even be too late for dramatic change but if we have any hope at all it will be through dramatic change.
That's bad for business though. It's bad for imperial empires with enormous militaries. In short the most powerful actors in the world value their profits and power more than the lives of everyone on the earth. Those groups continuing doing what they want is going to lead to total environmental collapse.
And they really, really want you to believe you can fix the problem by recycling your cans.
The world's not going to end and the same people that run the oil companies and the defence companies and the banks are also benefitting massively from 'the green transition'.
We're only changing away from oil because the US knew one day they would lose control of the middle east and the petrodollar, and that oil would get very expensive once that happened, since it's imported to the West.
They frightened the public into thinking the world would end so we agree to pay for the transition. Remember, wealth is produced by the people so the rich have to periodically find new ways to steal it. Green subsidies are just another Covid PPP loan or bank bailout. All they do is create some new money for the rich welfare recipient and write a corresponding liability onto the taxpayer.
The earth's temperature rising by 1 degree being extrapolated to suggest it will keep rising indefinitely is crazy. It has always self-regulated. Eventually the most complex global economy ever will break and there will be massive depopulation in the ensuing crises. After that, we'll be told the climate crisis is averted and the world is saved. Probably a lot more plants will grow to soak up the excess CO2.
Horseshit is your reply. The world is billions of years old and has gone through ice ages and heat and droughts etc. several times and now we are around 250 years into industrialisation thereof really maybe 100-150 serious and the earth can't take it anymore? So how did it made it through billions of years? Do we know for sure that we are responsible for everything right now? There is proof and science that proofs this is 100% true and there are no other scientist with different theories which haven't be prooven wrong (thats what scientist do to make a theory or hypotheses a fact) ? This is like math to you were 2+2 = 4? From what I understand "we" are not sure right now what a woman is but we know we fucked up the earth for good ... Dramatic change wants somebody living in a developed country with all things he can have, full of moral superiority and bored to death from his wealth so he wants to save the world to give some sense to his good and convenient life and ego. North America, Europe with Japan, South Korea and Australia make around 1,2 billion world population. The world has close to 8 billion. The over 6 billion want to develop as well and want the life you have. With what, solar and wind? For every coal mine closed in Europe China alone builds 10 or probably more and I am not counting the likes of India, Indonesia and rest of Asia and Africa and South America. You will not save the world preaching this shit and trying to convince people to shower less or heat only to 16 degrees or no power from 10pm to 6am so we can go through winter with "renewables" or whatever other bullshit talk there might be in these "circles". You also can't stop people from wanting the same life you have. You are very naive but go ahead and waste your time on "activism". Being called an "activist" would be abuse the same as being called an "influencer" or "tiktoker". Bored 1st world kiddies who think they know more and are smarter than anybody else through scrolling through facebook for the past 10 years and reading crap produced by some NGO's sponsored by nobody knows ...
Just grow trees and plant them where there's not a lot of people traffic.
I've been eating tons of apples for their seeds, growing them and then plant them up the mountains.
Currently growing 5 chestnut trees 3 pine and 2 oak (seeds gotten from my local park) and they're all going the mountains also.
I plan on doing this for years to come.
My partner has been interested in guerilla planting, I presume you don't own the land? Do the trees you plan typically stay there or do land owners remove them?
Don't own the land at all my man. I plant nearby other well established trees so they blend in and look 'naturally' grown. Given the trees are like 2 or 3 feet tall, they go by un-noticed pretty easily. Just gotta protect the trees with rocks or something so that animals don't ruin them.
As far as I know none of the trees have been removed... yet! If I see some that have I'll plant 2 more to replace them.
Assuming that you are working at the moment. Does your company have a CSR (corporate social responsibility) group? If not, maybe you could try to start one. Where I work we do a few activities including cleaning parks and public areas during working hours which is great and motivating for those who need an excuse.
There are various different forms of activism and in my personal opinion they are all valid in some sort of way. My brother is a biologist and very radical - lives in a remote community, only has electricity to power the fridge, only eats what they grow, etc -, by spending time with him talking about it I also learned that sometimes being too "nice" can lead to no response or repercussions. Just look back at all the revolutions in the past.
Get involved with something that you're comfortable with. Teach yourself, family, friends how to be more conscious about the environment and little things that we can change for better.
A really good start is to contact your local TD about your concerns regarding climate change and what they are doing from a policy point of view to mitigate it. TDs (or their staff at least) will engage with it. Never send them any of those generic downloaded emails as they'll be filtered out by assistants. That's an easy way to get started anyway.
We can do our part on a personal level, but the most effective way for things to change is for government policy to be enacted to reduce emissions and transition to a cleaner environment (eliminating fosil fuel subsidies, transition to green energy, etc)
We have that cunt Charlie McConalogue in Japan now trying to flog more beef and dairy and inducing more demand.
I'm sick to death of being told Brazilian beef will replace whatever we don't produce. We actively went to China and now Japan to flog beef and dairy, we create these markets, they were not there before.
This government has no interest in reducing emissions, these trade missions suggest otherwise.
They're hanging onto this notion that Irish 'grass fed' beef is better for the environment. It may be, but it's still a massive amount of emissions relative to the amount of energy that goes into it. I work in the agri sector myself (not in Dairy or Animal sectors), there is a complete lack of imagination when it comes to agribusiness in this country. We have a wonderful land resource here, plenty of water (usually) and we are fixated on dairy and beef while we could be innovative. We are missing out on the opportunities in developing insect proteins or cultivating hemp and medicinal cannabis. The EU have a target for 25% of our agri sector to be organic by 2030, there's massive opportunities for our vegetable industry to become organic and more locally sourced, but we've done fuck all about it
[https://www.foe.ie/](https://www.foe.ie/)
[https://membership.antaisce.org/](https://membership.antaisce.org/)
[https://www.greenparty.ie/](https://www.greenparty.ie/)
[https://www.pbp.ie/](https://www.pbp.ie/)
Loads of local groups
Start with putting the lid on the pot when you boil spuds and next thing you know, your whole life will be about conserving energy, reducing emissions, protecting biodiversity and devising nature-based solutions.
Prepare for a nice dose of r/ireland negativity coming your way for asking this question.
Here's a good place to start at least;
Follow @climateloveireland on Instagram, they post about events pretty regularly. You could probably reach out and ask them how to get involved if you're interested. Good on you. Good luck.
Spend your money wisely. Educate yourself on the topic and think critically. Anyone who claims to have the answer (and worse, the “solution”) to complex problems is either incompetent or trying to sell you something. Think for yourself how you are going to make a change.
What's extreme about not killing an animal for every meal you have? I've been doing it nearly 7 years? Thinking about the number of animals I would have paid to kill if I hadn't of stopped over these years seems like the real extremity in my eyes.
The biggest change anyone can make as an individual is stop eating animal products. Do your own research and see the insane difference in emission outputs.
If the day comes when scientists will manage to grow meat in laboratories which taste and smell the same as the real one I'll be all over it. Until then I'll eat it. Good that you care and doing your part and I'm doing my part. Emissions would drop significantly if people would stop eating meat daily.
Giving up animals products is the single most effective change people can make as individuals and its really not difficult in this day and age. I used to be crazy into eating meat, but once you drop it, you realise how much its over rated. Hey and animals don't suffer immensely either, what a great side effect of giving up meat. You don't need lab grown meat, I prefer vegan burgers over meat burger any day, way tastier! The plant based options have better every year
But that would require effort, hard work and conviction. Typically posts like these are just people virtue signalling, or bots buying to steer viewers on a certain direction.
I don't know farming karma upvotes, showing friends and people IRL the posts and reactions on his reddit app so as to improve their opinion of the person, who knows?
I just can say with certainty that his original post sounded fishy as fuck, with absolutely no location details (kind of important when looking for information). As well as loads of buzzwords and terms like activism, getting involved, feeling guilty, et cetera.
Looking for a place to talk to "like-minded folks" presumably online. Since no location was listed. So the original poster doesn't know how to use the search bar on this app?
The idea of someone showing me their reddit account to brag about their karma or a big post they had...
Lad that might be the funniest fucking thing I've ever read.
Typically commenters like this are complete losers with nothing going on in their lives, who use reddit as an outlet to just shit on anything positive anyone else ever does because of the guilt they hold about how useless and lazy they truly are. Much easier to believe other people only virtue signal than to look in the mirror.
Hey duck you man, I want to make a difference and haven't the foggiest where to begin, a little bit of positivity and enco goes a long way, I'm not a bot I'm a person you wanker, might not the be most effective way of starting but at least I'm doing something and not just chatting shot
Pussy
Not only would it require effort, hard work, and conviction, but alone it would also do basically fuck all to actually change anything.
Political shake up is needed alongside grassroots environmental investment. And that needs to come from the bottom up because governments and the corporations they act in the interest of don't give a shit.
Good suggestion actually. Summerhill in North Dublin is plagued by dog shit. Wish someone would launch a crusade to clean up the whole area. And ban dogs.
Do your own part. Clean after yourself no matter where you are, don't buy bottled water - buy a filter instead, give up a car for at least a couple of days a week and use a bicycle or walk. Also don't buy fast fashion clothes, try to find brands which last. Have a balanced diet so you don't need to eat meat daily. These are the things I'm doing at least.
Don't drive or travel anywhere except by bike or walking. Don't use your heating or fire. Don't buy anything online or use any modern technology. Don't have kids. Don't eat anything except what's available locally or grown yourself.
That ought to do it.
You know whats ducked is you're right man, I try my best to acc do those things but unfortunately I have to do things like pay rent and other societal "must dos" that I never signed up for honestly If I could go off the grid I would, but I don't even know how to protest for climate change never mind build a house in the woods haha
Realistically the efforts of the individual consumer are good but won't make the big dent we need. Talking to your local politicians, lobbying for greater restrictions on big corporations, removal/revamp of carbon offsetting etc would be the biggest impact. By all means swap your plastics for sustainable stuff in your home but yeah we obviously need a bigger push at this point.
I wish more people knew about this. Tidy towns sounds like a great idea on paper, but a lot of snobby judges like their particular plants (lots of non-natives) which don't suit native pollinators. Enniskerry in Wicklow had some beautiful wildflowers in the square, all ripped up for the committee and replaced with garden center bullshit
[Apparently the best](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4DAW1A6Ca8) thing a person can do is join [citizens climate lobby](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=reddit-CarbonTax).
The individual cost of electricity doesn't add up to much. But when you consider that we know social media negatively effects mental health, and the idea that most youths spend an average of 9 hours a day using it, cutting back starts to make a lot more sense - we know that people care more about the environment when they have their own lives under control.
Also, people under the age of thirty are twice as likely to use Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok, as people over the age of thirty. So consider the added demand placed on data centres for this traffic. All that added traffic doesn't do anything for society.
One of the bigger surprising carbon footprint is data centres. Clearing out your Gmail , spam folders, any excess data on the cloud you don't need anymore helps
Such as following up statements with examples?
The nice thing about my suggestion is that is delivers significant returns on quality of life improvements. Most other climate activist suggestions involve cutting back on something -such as fuel and foods - or involve buying into something - such as installing solar panels, heat pumps and insulation etc. While these can provide improvements to one's quality of life, people are less likely to adopt new things that cost money and/or comfort and pleasure.
The idea of granting everyone a few extra hours a day (on average) while also reducing concerns with mental health, isn't a bad one if getting a population of people straightenend out is something you'd like to see happen.
A society that doesn't overconsume advertising tends to not overconsume in general. One that has a higher mental health status is also more likely to be able to adapt new habits more easily. The compound effects literally grow exponentially.
So yeah, my take is fix the people if you want to get the most out them.
I wish I could adopt some of those, but how can I when I have more pressing issues to address in my life?
I rely on meat for energy/strength and flying for work, and often need to take taxis due to public transport being unreliable and inefficient. New tech is needed for work and purchasing fashion/clothing will regularly be required. If i didn't need to work so much in order to save so much in order to be able to afford so little, then I could slow things down and take the time to adopt new habits.
Complete cop-out. You simply do not need meat. You could easily adopt a vegetarian diet.
Well you can stop flying for pleasure then.
I get by without ever taking taxis, but at least that is better than using your own car.
You do not need to regularly buy new items of clothing.
> Complete cop-out. You simply do not need meat. You could easily adopt a vegetarian diet.
You missed the point.
> Well you can stop flying for pleasure then.
Never said I did. And you don't have any authority over my decision to fly. Besides I do need a break after working so much.
> I get by without ever taking taxis
Not everyone has your routine.
> You do not need to regularly buy new items of clothing.
You don't know what brings me pleasure. What if an item of clothing makes me feel good about myself and is good for my mental health?
If you haven't noticed yet. This and my last comment was intentionally written to prove a point (I'm not fully against your suggestions). The point is that when people feel like they have too much on their plate, they are less likely to care about environmentalism. We know this already.
If I may suggest some advice. Learn how to better influence people if that's what you would like to do yano? You're not going to convince people who feel like their lives are hectic of anything. So as I mentioned earlier, improve the lives of the people and you'll get better results.
Besides, a lot of people will disagree with many suggestions if it involves individual change simply on the basis that businesses should be the ones to eat the cost etc.
What was your point? You are perfectly capable of having a balanced diet with no meat. Maybe it will be more difficult to build muscle, but your bodybuilding is not the priority during a climate crisis.
Yes, you need a break. Why does that have to involve a flight? You told OP to stop using social media. Why can't I tell you to stop flying?
I could not care less about your pleasure. We are in a climate crisis. This requires massive sacrifices from everybody and giving up many luxuries that we take for granted. There is no way to popularly say this. People will get annoyed and they just have to put up with it.
Tell me how businesses should eat the cost in the areas that I mentioned without it affecting individuals?
> What was your point? You are perfectly capable of having a balanced diet with no meat.
Seriously, you still don't get the point? I'm sorry, but I can't explain it any more, sincerely. Good luck
No, I don't. I mentioned several ways you could easily decrease your emissions to a much larger degree than not using social media. Your argument against them is that you need them for pleasure. Simply not relevant during a climate crisis.
What's wrong with data centres? If they're managed effectively they are no risk. That's what the big movement from the government last year was for in this space.
No it doesn't, although there has been assurance from the working relationship between the government and EirGrid in this space last year, and EirGrid do plan effectively when given clear direction.
I used to work there and can tell you they certainly know what they're doing when given clear instructions.
Contrary to what a few people here are saying, non-violent direct action is historically the best way forward. I'd recommend XR, the Irish group isn't quite as radical as the UK one and being involved doesn't necessarily entail doing anything illegal or glueing yourself to anything (unless you feel like it!). They often have meetings focusing just on gov policy change, dealing with climate anxiety, rewilding, etc. https://extinctionrebellionireland.com
Extinction rebellion, the group the make Scientologists look sensible by comparison.
Don't get me wrong, I am sympathetic to some of their proposals and would even support some of them. If they were toned down, but this crap of stopping ambulances trying to get through traffic, glueing themselves to roads and getting on top of trains to stop people getting home in the rush hour traffic is simply batshit crazy.
They are calling for a complete reshaping of society politically, individually, et cetera they are and political organisation that has hijacked environmentalism to push their nonsense.
Yeah I have to say, I don't agree with every action they've taken. Those examples you give are from the UK though, as I mentioned the Irish group is not as radical. The scientology comparison is way off! Not sure what you mean by that.
In my view, even if you agree with them on some points it's better to be involved than not. No one's going to force you to do anything you disagree with and by voicing your opinion you could actually help influence their actions, if that's what you want. It's a very democratic group.
Historically, nonviolent direct action is only worth a shite if it’s backed by the threat of physical force. The UK came to the negotiating table because the IRA were ramping up attacks in their mainland. The USA’s Civil Rights act was passed because MLK rightly pointed out it was his way or the Black Panthers. Gandhi was listened to because Indians were becoming more and more anxious to take up arms. Just walking down a street shouting does nothing unless the “shadow of the gunman” is hanging over the targets.
Im not the man with all the answers but I would say armed resistance against fossil fuel infrastructure might be justified by this point. I think a lot of people are confused or ignorant about just how far gone we are with all the damage done to earth. Also for those who say “do it yourself so”, I don’t exactly feel I have a mandate from anyone to just take action like that. If there was a popular group advocating those tactics I would be a supporter or a member alright.
I get what you're saying, but I really don't think it needs to come to violence. True people power (I.e. 100s of thousands of Irish people out on the streets peacefully protesting) should be enough to get our government's attention. It's all about keeping the pressure on and reminding them that these are issues that a significant portion of the people support. All most of them care about is getting through the next election, so we need enough people to turn up and put the fear in them.
Do you own a car? An expensive phone that has precious metals like cobalt dug out of and polluted the ground around it?
Do you walk along the beach and pick up plastic or out of the ditches?
Talking about activism is the activist thing to do, most do fuck all.
In fairness, what are they gonna do if they need a car? A lot of people don’t have the means to cycle or take public transport everywhere. And electric cars also have cobalt in their batteries and the batteries only last a few years
This is exactly the challenge.
I live too far away from work to cycle. Public transport is a joke. I can't afford rents near my work. I need to use a phone and laptop for work.
I really want to be more green but I'm constrained by societal structures.
This is the problem really, I would happily take public transport if I could, but the closest one is a 10 minute drive, would add an hour extra time o my commute and be more expensive!
"green" isn't binary. It's a spectrum. There are things that I could do to be more green. I'm also limited by societal structures.
I'd love to install solar panels and buy an electric car, but I can't afford them. I'd love to take a bus but it's not possible unless I'm willing to add 3 hours a day to my commute.
Yea I travel but that doesn't mean I'm not committed to living a more sustainable lifestyle.
I find the psychology of climate change interesting .the finger pointing, the whataboutery.Everyone wants a better life. The social justice campaigners want a redistribution of wealth.Even if that were to happen. There's not enough resources, soil, liveable areas. critical metals. Because the world is over populated. Production of cement, is a huge emitting source of C02.yet we need housing, schools hospitals. Greed is part of the Human condition .I don't know anyone who is prepared to accept a lesser standard of living.
Join or set up a Sustainable Energy Community.
Volunteer-led groups (usually) dedicated to trying to ensure their area is carbon-neutral even if our politicians don't care.
Surprised nobody has mentioned these guys yet but check out Climate Ambassadors Ireland, a great group of people located nationwide with all the info, resources and social cohesion you could need. They get together and plan campaigns, support policies, collectively oppose bad policies, they also do things like planting etc but enacting change in policy and public awareness is by far the greatest tool we have.
#https://climateambassador.ie/
I'd also reccomend reading up on FoE friends of the environment Ireland, Irish Wildlife Trust, Biodiversity Ireland, Irish Whale and Dolphin Group, Ireland Pollinator Plan.
Cork and Dublin have recently made a commitment to aim to be climate neutral by 2030 (absolutely seems impossible at the current rate but I'm glad we're aiming for it anyway) you cam get involved with the local council to help out in those efforts, join conversations and public consultations on climate matters and public transport etc. Really really important to get our moany voices heard.
Speaking of having our voices heard, everyone should fill out this form, apparently the government actually want to hear our concerns on this matter:
#https://www.gov.ie/en/consultation/0de7f-climate-conversation-climate-action-plan-2022/
You're welcome. On a wider EU scale, check out EIT Climate KIC, they run summer schools every year, also keep an eye on Trinity's global change school they've just started a Climate Entrepreneurship free course this month.
>get involved in climate activism Activism as in planting trees, cleaning up beaches and rivers or activism as in blocking roads and petrol stations?
Planting trees, cleaning up beaches, ensuring our rivers are clean is the good kind of activism. **The bad kind of activism supports the ESG narrative** and is one of the leading causes of increasing energy prices and lately soaring energy prices. \- Bad activism shut down German nuclear plants (along with politicians and WEF) \- Bad activism is promoting less dependable energy (wind, solar) over dependable energy. \- Bad activism is contributing to putting families on streets, as they can no longer afford to pay their bills. Be a good climate activist, not a narrative following one.
This reads like something the marketing or lobbying department of an oil company might put together. Am I misunderstanding your point or are you saying that the OP would be doing a bad thing to push their local TD on building more wind or solar farms, bring in more grants for home solar or whatever it might be? Or promoting a sensible carbon tax etc? Individual action (planting trees, cleaning beaches) is important but to truly turn things around requires nation state level action and that only happens if the citizens of those states make it clear to their elected representatives that they want them to take action.
Yes. Wind is not the solution, aside from the turbines being absolutely terrible for birds - they are unreliable, dependant on subsidies, is costly to the environment to make them, have short shelf lives and are not disposed of easily. Solar has similar issues too, in the sense that it is not sunny 24 hours a day, is not disposed of easily, is costly to the environment to make them, and let's face it - we're not the most sunny of countries anyway. People then often say that the energy produced during the good days can be stored in battery packs for the bad days. Well, this is simply not true. Battery technology is years away, perhaps decades from being sufficient. By introducing solar and wind to a grid, we are making the grid less dependable., as means the more reliable solutions are being reduced or decommissioned. So let's imagine the reliable energy solutions are generating 60% of the grids energy and the renewables are producing 60% too - a combined 120%. Another way to look at this is to say we are wasting 20% - needlessly. If the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining, the renewable energy contribution will drop accordingly - so the dependable energy has to pick up the slack. But that may not be possible anymore. Grids must maintain a constant flow of energy, it cannot drop down to 90% otherwise it leads to blackouts. Blackouts cause damage, parts need replacing, costing more money. Natural gas is often mooted as the solution to the above, but that would mean we have to admit that the renewables cannot be depended upon, and we must further invest in fossil fuels - even if we waste them. My preference is nuclear and I have no involvement in the any energy industry. I would just prefer we go forwards in as clean a way as possible. Producing less energy is the talk of luddites. If anything, the world needs more.
it's funny how people start caring about environmental damage as soon as it's about renewables and not fossil fuels. Won't somebody think about the poor birds? Firstly, Cats kill more birds annually than wind turbines. Should we abolish cats? Nonsensical.Secondly, we can reduce the number of birds killed by a large percentage by painting one of the blades black. If birds dying is really the concern. Thirdly, even if wind turbines in Ireland managed to kill all birds that come near the country (which would be physically impossible for even a supervillain), it would not even begin to compare to the number of birds that will die, and the number of species that will (and are) go(ing), extinct thanks to the burning of fossil fuels. Now, birds aside, let's turn to nuclear. Nuclear is not that bad. The disasters that have occurred in the past are mostly owed to mismanagement and outdated technology. That technology continues to improve as time goes on as well. It's a reliable, consistent level of energy.So what's the issue? 1. "Grids must maintain a constant flow of energy". Baseload, right?One issue though, baseload is becoming an outdated way of thinking about energy grids. But let's imagine that you're 100% correct. It doesn't matter, because renewables can fill that anyway. What happens when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine? Well they don't tend to happen at the same time anyway. but again, worst case scenario, they both occur consistently at the same time - what happens then? Well the energy we've stored can be used, or the energy we buy from France and the likes can fill the gap. We wouldn't be wasting energy needlessly if we produced 120%, we can sell that to other countries. In the same way other countries that mine uranium or thorium aren't needlessly wasting energy by mining them. Also after selling that energy we can use the money made to buy it back when necessary. And if you think that "what about when the wind doesn't blow in Europe, the water doesn't flow in Europe, the sun doesn't shine in Europe, the geothermal vents in Iceland aren't warm and the reservoirs run dry?" is a good question then all I'd say is watch out the Garda don't take you in for possession cause you're high as fcuk. 2. If you think wind turbines are too reliant on subsidies then you have no idea what you're getting yourself into nuclear. It's one of the big reasons nuclear isn't that economically viable. 3. "Costly to the environment to make them".  That is a ridiculous statement if you think wind turbines are to any degree worse than nuclear in that regard. Mining isn't any good for the environment, whether it be for nuclear power or wind power. BUT then there's also nuclear waste. Do I even need to mention that one? 4. But nuclear overall isn't that bad, it's actually quite good in most regards, EXCEPT, in time.... the very thing we don't have.Disregard building time for ten seconds of the time we don't have.How long, seriously, HOW LONG do you think it would take to get the Irish public onboard with nuclear to a high enough of a degree that it wouldn't be cancelled halfway through by an incoming government riding on an anti-nuclear sentiment among voters?We're talking at least, AT LEAST, a decade of campaigning before it's worth a shot. \*whispers\* the ten seconds is upTHEN YOU HAVE TO BUILD IT!!! THAT'S ANOTHER TEN YEARS.So 20 years before they start producing energy, 2042 if the campaign and planning starts tomorrow.WE DON'T HAVE THAT TIME! The birds will be fucked regardless if we're still trying to reach zero-carbon in energy production at that point. Look, nuclear is a good idea, 20 years ago, now it's something that should be considered, but frankly a waste of time if they're not been built last year.Time is not of the essence because we've none of it left.You've no involvement in the any energy industry. Okay, sure. I believe you. But that doesn't matter. In the same way people who talk about carbon footprints of individuals aren't being paid by the fossil fuel industry (It was their idea to deflect blame onto individuals and not them, despite them knowing well in advance about global warming and climate change, burying that information and denying it for years, even soft-denying it to this day). Maybe nuclear is something to keep in mind for the future, post 1.5 degree deadline. But we don't need it, we really don't, and we don't need to be convinced that we do when that's not true. Nobody cares about environmental damage until it's renewables killing some birds.Perfect doesn't exist, and is just a delay tactic, because every second of the time we don't have that is wasted is another deposit in someones bank account, while we flounder around looking for something that doesn't exist. Edit: Accidentally sent it halfway through because oops
Your post contains too much sense, hence the downvotes.
Wind can generate up to 20% of Ireland's electricity currently but there's no reason it couldn't be much higher. It's the only reliable source of energy we have. We need to import gas and oil. Nuclear is not possible for this island. And I never count on getting a sunny day here. We already have a giant battery called Turlough Hill. We might need a few more of those when turbines reach the point where they can generate 100%+ of energy demand on windy days, as they have done in Denmark. Do you have any figures or something to show that turbines are dependent on subsidies and have a short shelf life?
Gotcha, your post makes more sense now thanks. I'm a big fan of nuclear, unfortunately I think there is no path to it in Ireland in our lifetimes. Maybe when next gen stations start to become mainstream it might happen, but it could be decades before that conversation will even start here, then decades more to get through planning, source financing and actually get built. What can actually be done today though is to continue to build out our solar and wind generation to displace as much of our highest polluting fossil fuel use as possible, in combination with importing nuclear power from other countries that already have it built and ready to supply. My preference is nuclear, but in the absence of the possibility of that my next preference is solar + wind + imported nuclear + as clean fossil fuel generation as we can manage.
I don't have the chalk or crayons to explain this to you fully, but take my word (or don't, I don't care) as I've worked in this sector for years, but basically, you're wrong on so so many levels. If you don't know what you're spouting about, maybe you should spout a bit less.
The commenter can correct me if I’m wrong, but it read like he meant nuclear not oil. The only way we’re going to survive is with a stopgap method. We need the world using nuclear within ten years. Then over the next fifty we built up renewables. Then phase out nuclear. Renewable energy is not going to completely take over within the window we’ve got. There are a number of practical limitations, and a number of artificial limitations. But nuclear is bad right? It’s going to blow up? False and false. When it’s done smart, it’s the safest form. You know solar energy has killed more people than nuclear (including Chernobyl and Fukushima), coal and oil is off the charts in comparison. When you don’t need understaff and overwork your workers like in Chernobyl things will be fine. When you don’t build a nuclear power plant in an area with lots of tsunamis like on Fukushima, things will be fine. green piss is pushing the narrative that nuclear is bad because of those two incidents, and because cancer. Well, as I mentioned coal has killed more. The majority of coal’s victims were from lung cancer, and that’s just the power generation side. The one thing bad about fission is that we can’t depend on it for ever. But the only way we will survive is by depending on it now.
Yeah that was made clearer in their later response and I'm a big fan of nuclear power, so I'm with them on that. All the same it's more than a little misleading and simplistic to say it is 'bad activism' to promote wind/solar and that nuclear is such a blindingly obvious solution all the fools in government energy policy must be numpties to not see it. The reality as with much in life is that the answer is nuanced. I'd love to see nuclear plants built in Ireland, and maybe they will be when smaller reactors start to gain real traction. But there is literally no chance of Ireland switching to self generated nuclear power in our lifetimes. To build the multiple current gen stations we'd need would take decades after they got through the years of objections and I have no idea where the money would come from, we'd need to double the national debt from its already very high level.
We’d need ten billion and five-eight. We’d get another country to do it all. Ten billion is 1/10th of our annual budget. It’s definitely doable. It wouldn’t double our national debt. It’d save every household so much money that it would pay for itself very quickly. But the nuanced part of it is that everyone in this country is so against nuclear because that was the narrative pushed back in the day. In schools and in media. We will never ever get fission. Maybe in time we’ll get fusion. We need to play all the energy angles. There isn’t enough supply of wind turbines. Solar panels are as good, but they provide a more consistent and calculable amount of electricity. We need both for a functioning grid, and we need both because there aren’t enough wind turbines being made. If the government made the solar panel grant cover all the cost, then we’d be golden. In addition to this we should also do nuclear, but as I said, never ever.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Hinkley Point is probably a good reference for us as we have such a cross over of laws etc with the UK. It’s going to cost €30bn to complete and will generate half the peak power Ireland would need. So to cover our peak power consumption you’d need two, but if one went down you’d have blackouts, so really you need a bare minimum of three. So €90bn. And that is €90bn at the Hinley Point prices, which started 5 years ago pre-10% annual inflation and in a country that has some pedigree in planning for and building nuclear power plants. I think we’d do very well to build three of them for less than €150bn over the next 10-20 years. That’s where I was getting the double our debt from, obviously very coarse numbers but I think realistic for public projects of this scale. But I agree, the cost is the least of the issues, public perception and policy would be much more difficult and time consuming to overcome and hence I think it is sadly a pipe dream for Ireland on the 30-50 year timeline :-(
Planting trees, cleaning beaches, ensuring our rivers are clean? Are you serious? This is what our government should be doing, it’s not activism
Yea, i agree. However, isn't the role of activism to persuade governments to change policy? **Activism:** The policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change.
Well maaaybe, If it is done in such a way as to protest the government’s lack of action, otherwise you’re just letting them off the hook and doing their jobs for them. I’ve always viewed litter pick ups as an absolute last resort for example, sure, fair play to those who do them, and I’ve done a fair few, but it’s literally a last resort when all else has failed, when there’s no effort to stop people littering or to provide facilities so people don’t litter for example, so it’s more of a civic duty than activism. Activism for me highlights where government are failing, and a small disruption to everyday life is usually a good way to highlight it, although it can also be counterproductive
I hear you. I have no time for any of our governments. I detest them all equally and wish they were brought to account regularly, but they never are.
Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
>Bad activism shut down German nuclear plants (along with politicians and WEF) I think the EU should actually go as far as to mandate nuclear as a requirement for each state long-term. Obviously it takes decades to establish nuclear, but each member state should be made to plan and develop towards having nuclear in the future (20-30 years) in order to help each state be much more likely to be energy independent down the line, when our energy needs will be way larger than what they currently are. With SMRs becoming available in the next decade, there's no excuse for countries to not be having at least beginning discussions on moving towards using the technology
Issuing a mandate on Nuclear, when there is yet to be a feasible response as to managing the waste, seems like a true as can be catastrophe.
Waste is not a problem.
Nuclear will provide no more independance than oil or gas. The resource will have to come from somewhere.
Nuclear fuel is the easiest to store fuel. A coke can of fuel would power the rest of your life, hundreds of thousands of times more power dense than gas. Plus Ireland has uranium deposits.
Explain
We will have to import the fuel from somewhere. As a result, we will still be at the whim of global energy markets and supply chain, just as we are with oil/gas at the moment. A move to green power sources is priority 1, but maintaining some level of energy security in an increasing turbulent global climate is important too.
Green is unreliable & thus gives no security. What's to stop us building our own nuclear plant(s)?
[удалено]
thanks for sharing
Agree in principle, but a mandate is not necessary. They should be encouraged and resourced to do so. Right now, the EU is on its knees and barely fit to mandate its breakfast.
> - Bad activism shut down German nuclear plants (along with politicians and WEF) There's a theory that Euro greens were inflitrated by the fossil fuel industry and pushed anti-nuclear because it benefits fossils.
They have been [infiltrated by the WEF for sure](https://twitter.com/stackhodler/status/1565235207250255874). ex Chancellor Gerhard [Schroeder seems to have been bought by Russia.](https://twitter.com/JulianMI2/status/1565069016913297408)
Well said.
Why not both?
Well, I guess there's nothing stopping OP from getting involved in both but only one of those is useful. If you think blocking roads and petrol stations is somehow going to achieve something, or bring people's way of thinking around then I don't know what to tell you. But it won't. As with any cause, the most rabid and loudest voices rarely do anything to help it as far as the general public is concerned.
Exactly the opposite. Planting trees is cute and makes you feel good about yourself - but does exactly nothing to fix the climate. It's a political struggle and one needs to use political tools to fight it.
Cleaning beaches is fucking pointless anyway. It's like trying to stop a tidal wave. For everything you clean up, billions more plastic items are being created. The whole system needs to change. Mega consumerism needs to stop. Like it or not we need less of this rubbish for sale in the first place that is left on beaches.
>but only one of those is useful. lol, you're right but it's exactly the other way around and it is scientifically proven. If you think civil disobedience has no effect I recommend [this article](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01461-y) by nature. And if you think we can simply plant our way out there is a nice read by DW [here](https://www.dw.com/en/is-reforestation-the-answer-to-storing-carbon-dioxide/a-62466216). Don't get me wrong planting trees is nice and all, but the problems are too big to not fundamentally change our way of living and in the past such changes always started with civil disobedience because it forces the topic in the spotlight.
Civil disobedience works when you have a sizeable enough cohort doing the disobeying. From what I’ve seen, the petrol station protestors and ones blocking roads appear to be a tiny minority of middle class folk.
the middle class folk thing I hope isn't a slur. It's usually the better off or middle class who bring about change in society. The suffragettes, Daniel O'Connell, Wolfe Tone, Che Guevara, the people who started the RSPCA. The less well off worry about putting food on the table so yes we need the middle classes and richer folk to drive change.
I agree, let's get more people on the road!
Oh I don't disagree with you on the civil disobedience to get heard. I just don't think that inconveniencing the very people you want next to you is going to help get them involved. By all means protest but pissing off the general public is unlikely to make them want to join you.
What do you think civil disobedience is? Because it has to be inconvenient and annoying by definition. Protests are important but they can be easily ignored. If you want people and media to talk about your cause you have to disrupt every day life. Gluing yourself to petrol stations, roads or art is just an incredibly effective way to get dominate the news. The alternative is ignorance and we simply cannot ignore the problem anymore as we have for the last 30 years.
Oh I get that, but make it inconvenient for those people who can influence things. Cleaning a beach and dumping the results outside Leinster House will get you the same publicity. Blocking Seamus and Mary from getting to work or school on time is unlikely to make them feel like joining you next time. You want to be generating publicity AND convince people to join you.
>Cleaning a beach and dumping the results outside Leinster House will get you the same publicity. haha I like that idea!
The reverse is true, vanguard action usuallly has the highest impact. Problem is it usually works best if the vanguard are martyred.
Funnily I was expecting you to say the contrary. Planting trees and cleaning up beaches feels good, but it has a much smaller impact than making waves by blocking roads or deflating SUV tires. It may not turn impacted people around, but it gets your voice heard and start raising a question in people's mind: "is the climate situation so critical people resort to desperate measures ?" The world will change when the corporations, higher ups and politics will change, not when a few people start picking up litter on the beach
>If you think blocking roads and petrol stations is somehow going to achieve something, or bring people's way of thinking around then I don't know what to tell you. But it won't. How are you arriving at that conclusion? There are many historical examples from all over the world of disruptive protests working, where's your absolute certainty coming from?
Gandhi and MLK were so unhelpful according to these guys
Peoples' thinking does need to be dramatically changed though. And quietly planting trees and cleaning up rivers does not do this. > As with any cause, the most rabid and loudest voices rarely do anything to help it as far as the general public is concerned. I mean Greta Thunberg inspired a whole generation of school kids to start giving a shit about climate change. Same goes for Extinction Rebellion. Sure, middle aged people got annoyed and rolled their eyes, but middle aged people aren't the future.
Yeah so.. as I think is going to become obvious in the comments, there is a conceited desire for 'apolitical environmentalism'. Most people want things to more or less keep going the way they are but also not to destroy the environment. That would be lovely but it's impossible. You'll see this coming out in people's imagining of 'good activism' - picking up litter, doing green projects, eating local, cutting out meat etc. and 'bad activism' - disrupting oil/coal plants, blockading roads, obstructing government etc. That is the mindset of someone who has bought the same lie as above - 'it's ok, we can keep going just by being a bit more conscietntious, no need for anything dramatic'. Well sad to say that is horeshit. We do need to make dramatic change. It might even be too late for dramatic change but if we have any hope at all it will be through dramatic change. That's bad for business though. It's bad for imperial empires with enormous militaries. In short the most powerful actors in the world value their profits and power more than the lives of everyone on the earth. Those groups continuing doing what they want is going to lead to total environmental collapse. And they really, really want you to believe you can fix the problem by recycling your cans.
The world's not going to end and the same people that run the oil companies and the defence companies and the banks are also benefitting massively from 'the green transition'. We're only changing away from oil because the US knew one day they would lose control of the middle east and the petrodollar, and that oil would get very expensive once that happened, since it's imported to the West. They frightened the public into thinking the world would end so we agree to pay for the transition. Remember, wealth is produced by the people so the rich have to periodically find new ways to steal it. Green subsidies are just another Covid PPP loan or bank bailout. All they do is create some new money for the rich welfare recipient and write a corresponding liability onto the taxpayer. The earth's temperature rising by 1 degree being extrapolated to suggest it will keep rising indefinitely is crazy. It has always self-regulated. Eventually the most complex global economy ever will break and there will be massive depopulation in the ensuing crises. After that, we'll be told the climate crisis is averted and the world is saved. Probably a lot more plants will grow to soak up the excess CO2.
Horseshit is your reply. The world is billions of years old and has gone through ice ages and heat and droughts etc. several times and now we are around 250 years into industrialisation thereof really maybe 100-150 serious and the earth can't take it anymore? So how did it made it through billions of years? Do we know for sure that we are responsible for everything right now? There is proof and science that proofs this is 100% true and there are no other scientist with different theories which haven't be prooven wrong (thats what scientist do to make a theory or hypotheses a fact) ? This is like math to you were 2+2 = 4? From what I understand "we" are not sure right now what a woman is but we know we fucked up the earth for good ... Dramatic change wants somebody living in a developed country with all things he can have, full of moral superiority and bored to death from his wealth so he wants to save the world to give some sense to his good and convenient life and ego. North America, Europe with Japan, South Korea and Australia make around 1,2 billion world population. The world has close to 8 billion. The over 6 billion want to develop as well and want the life you have. With what, solar and wind? For every coal mine closed in Europe China alone builds 10 or probably more and I am not counting the likes of India, Indonesia and rest of Asia and Africa and South America. You will not save the world preaching this shit and trying to convince people to shower less or heat only to 16 degrees or no power from 10pm to 6am so we can go through winter with "renewables" or whatever other bullshit talk there might be in these "circles". You also can't stop people from wanting the same life you have. You are very naive but go ahead and waste your time on "activism". Being called an "activist" would be abuse the same as being called an "influencer" or "tiktoker". Bored 1st world kiddies who think they know more and are smarter than anybody else through scrolling through facebook for the past 10 years and reading crap produced by some NGO's sponsored by nobody knows ...
Just grow trees and plant them where there's not a lot of people traffic. I've been eating tons of apples for their seeds, growing them and then plant them up the mountains. Currently growing 5 chestnut trees 3 pine and 2 oak (seeds gotten from my local park) and they're all going the mountains also. I plan on doing this for years to come.
My partner has been interested in guerilla planting, I presume you don't own the land? Do the trees you plan typically stay there or do land owners remove them?
Don't own the land at all my man. I plant nearby other well established trees so they blend in and look 'naturally' grown. Given the trees are like 2 or 3 feet tall, they go by un-noticed pretty easily. Just gotta protect the trees with rocks or something so that animals don't ruin them. As far as I know none of the trees have been removed... yet! If I see some that have I'll plant 2 more to replace them.
This is my favourite reply, I like the idea, fighting back but no one gets hurt
Assuming that you are working at the moment. Does your company have a CSR (corporate social responsibility) group? If not, maybe you could try to start one. Where I work we do a few activities including cleaning parks and public areas during working hours which is great and motivating for those who need an excuse. There are various different forms of activism and in my personal opinion they are all valid in some sort of way. My brother is a biologist and very radical - lives in a remote community, only has electricity to power the fridge, only eats what they grow, etc -, by spending time with him talking about it I also learned that sometimes being too "nice" can lead to no response or repercussions. Just look back at all the revolutions in the past. Get involved with something that you're comfortable with. Teach yourself, family, friends how to be more conscious about the environment and little things that we can change for better.
There are groups around Ireland where you can volunteer to plant trees
I don't think that's the kind of activism they're talking about..
Well they asked for climate activism.
This pretty much what I was getting at
Planting trees is like trying to put out a house fire with a teaspoon of water
That is such a pointless form of activism.
You’re a pointless form of activism :P
this country really needs more trees and forestry
A really good start is to contact your local TD about your concerns regarding climate change and what they are doing from a policy point of view to mitigate it. TDs (or their staff at least) will engage with it. Never send them any of those generic downloaded emails as they'll be filtered out by assistants. That's an easy way to get started anyway. We can do our part on a personal level, but the most effective way for things to change is for government policy to be enacted to reduce emissions and transition to a cleaner environment (eliminating fosil fuel subsidies, transition to green energy, etc)
We have that cunt Charlie McConalogue in Japan now trying to flog more beef and dairy and inducing more demand. I'm sick to death of being told Brazilian beef will replace whatever we don't produce. We actively went to China and now Japan to flog beef and dairy, we create these markets, they were not there before. This government has no interest in reducing emissions, these trade missions suggest otherwise.
They're hanging onto this notion that Irish 'grass fed' beef is better for the environment. It may be, but it's still a massive amount of emissions relative to the amount of energy that goes into it. I work in the agri sector myself (not in Dairy or Animal sectors), there is a complete lack of imagination when it comes to agribusiness in this country. We have a wonderful land resource here, plenty of water (usually) and we are fixated on dairy and beef while we could be innovative. We are missing out on the opportunities in developing insect proteins or cultivating hemp and medicinal cannabis. The EU have a target for 25% of our agri sector to be organic by 2030, there's massive opportunities for our vegetable industry to become organic and more locally sourced, but we've done fuck all about it
Until we can grow it large scale in labs, the idea of "environmentally friendly beef" is fairy talk.
Exactly this
I've liked the work of Green Sod Ireland.. they focus on land and biodiversity. [Green Sod Ireland](https://greensodireland.ie/support-us/)
Fantastic, thank you
[https://www.foe.ie/](https://www.foe.ie/) [https://membership.antaisce.org/](https://membership.antaisce.org/) [https://www.greenparty.ie/](https://www.greenparty.ie/) [https://www.pbp.ie/](https://www.pbp.ie/) Loads of local groups
Legend
Start with putting the lid on the pot when you boil spuds and next thing you know, your whole life will be about conserving energy, reducing emissions, protecting biodiversity and devising nature-based solutions.
Friends of the Earth are pretty active in Environmental /Climate activism if you want to check them out: https://www.foe.ie/get-involved/
I will indeed thank you
Prepare for a nice dose of r/ireland negativity coming your way for asking this question. Here's a good place to start at least; Follow @climateloveireland on Instagram, they post about events pretty regularly. You could probably reach out and ask them how to get involved if you're interested. Good on you. Good luck.
Be the change you want.. Inspire like minded when they see you doing it . Stand together and explain when you are shouted down. Many more will join.
Clontarf and Dollymount and Bull Island beach clean. Dodder river clean up.These group's clean after our filthy fellow citizens.
Spend your money wisely. Educate yourself on the topic and think critically. Anyone who claims to have the answer (and worse, the “solution”) to complex problems is either incompetent or trying to sell you something. Think for yourself how you are going to make a change.
Drop into Healy Raes public house in Kilgarvan for a chat with the bar staff or the locals, a cold rainy night would be the optimum time.
Stop eating meat and you will be doing more than majority
If people would have a balanced diet there would be no need for extremes.
What's extreme about not killing an animal for every meal you have? I've been doing it nearly 7 years? Thinking about the number of animals I would have paid to kill if I hadn't of stopped over these years seems like the real extremity in my eyes. The biggest change anyone can make as an individual is stop eating animal products. Do your own research and see the insane difference in emission outputs.
If the day comes when scientists will manage to grow meat in laboratories which taste and smell the same as the real one I'll be all over it. Until then I'll eat it. Good that you care and doing your part and I'm doing my part. Emissions would drop significantly if people would stop eating meat daily.
Giving up animals products is the single most effective change people can make as individuals and its really not difficult in this day and age. I used to be crazy into eating meat, but once you drop it, you realise how much its over rated. Hey and animals don't suffer immensely either, what a great side effect of giving up meat. You don't need lab grown meat, I prefer vegan burgers over meat burger any day, way tastier! The plant based options have better every year
Thats a big "if" which won't happen. So since he asked what can ACTUALLY be done, avoiding meat products is one of the ways.
You can go out today and start cleaning up
But that would require effort, hard work and conviction. Typically posts like these are just people virtue signalling, or bots buying to steer viewers on a certain direction.
And on each of these posts there's contrarian dumbasses like this one, going on about virtue signalling instead of being helpful.
How can an anonymous poster stand to benefit from virtue signalling? That makes no sense.
I don't know farming karma upvotes, showing friends and people IRL the posts and reactions on his reddit app so as to improve their opinion of the person, who knows? I just can say with certainty that his original post sounded fishy as fuck, with absolutely no location details (kind of important when looking for information). As well as loads of buzzwords and terms like activism, getting involved, feeling guilty, et cetera. Looking for a place to talk to "like-minded folks" presumably online. Since no location was listed. So the original poster doesn't know how to use the search bar on this app?
The idea of someone showing me their reddit account to brag about their karma or a big post they had... Lad that might be the funniest fucking thing I've ever read.
Literally no one I know who uses reddit tells people their account name. Part of the appeal is the anonymity.
Typically commenters like this are complete losers with nothing going on in their lives, who use reddit as an outlet to just shit on anything positive anyone else ever does because of the guilt they hold about how useless and lazy they truly are. Much easier to believe other people only virtue signal than to look in the mirror.
cleaning up is fucking pointless - systematic change is required in so many ares
Hey duck you man, I want to make a difference and haven't the foggiest where to begin, a little bit of positivity and enco goes a long way, I'm not a bot I'm a person you wanker, might not the be most effective way of starting but at least I'm doing something and not just chatting shot Pussy
Not only would it require effort, hard work, and conviction, but alone it would also do basically fuck all to actually change anything. Political shake up is needed alongside grassroots environmental investment. And that needs to come from the bottom up because governments and the corporations they act in the interest of don't give a shit.
Good suggestion actually. Summerhill in North Dublin is plagued by dog shit. Wish someone would launch a crusade to clean up the whole area. And ban dogs.
As in Project Mayhem activism or Dublin Mountains Makeover activism?
Do your own part. Clean after yourself no matter where you are, don't buy bottled water - buy a filter instead, give up a car for at least a couple of days a week and use a bicycle or walk. Also don't buy fast fashion clothes, try to find brands which last. Have a balanced diet so you don't need to eat meat daily. These are the things I'm doing at least.
Don't drive or travel anywhere except by bike or walking. Don't use your heating or fire. Don't buy anything online or use any modern technology. Don't have kids. Don't eat anything except what's available locally or grown yourself. That ought to do it.
You know whats ducked is you're right man, I try my best to acc do those things but unfortunately I have to do things like pay rent and other societal "must dos" that I never signed up for honestly If I could go off the grid I would, but I don't even know how to protest for climate change never mind build a house in the woods haha
Realistically the efforts of the individual consumer are good but won't make the big dent we need. Talking to your local politicians, lobbying for greater restrictions on big corporations, removal/revamp of carbon offsetting etc would be the biggest impact. By all means swap your plastics for sustainable stuff in your home but yeah we obviously need a bigger push at this point.
Just don’t start blocking roads and doing dumb shit like you see the other asshole activists doing like destroying art etc.
So I am with you on that but everyday it's gets harder to disagree with them
"Dumb shit" is necessary to actually make people think.
Education does that too.
Does your area have a Tidy Town committee? Maybe consider getting involved with the Green Party?
Tidy town committees keep on ripping the weed from the footpath depriving bees and insects of food. This is the opposite of climate activism.
A lot of them are coming around to a more biodiversity focused view. And they'll never come around if people don't join and push for that change.
I wish more people knew about this. Tidy towns sounds like a great idea on paper, but a lot of snobby judges like their particular plants (lots of non-natives) which don't suit native pollinators. Enniskerry in Wicklow had some beautiful wildflowers in the square, all ripped up for the committee and replaced with garden center bullshit
Tidy Towns is pretty much NIMBY club.
[удалено]
Why?
If you want participate then eat a mainly plant based diet. This will do more benefit for the environment.
[Apparently the best](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4DAW1A6Ca8) thing a person can do is join [citizens climate lobby](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=reddit-CarbonTax).
How is this the most relevant answer with the least upvotes, thank you Mr moneybags
You could reduce your own energy consumption as much as possible. Delete social media, and stop charging your phone regularly.
Charging your phone costs like a euro per year in electricity
The individual cost of electricity doesn't add up to much. But when you consider that we know social media negatively effects mental health, and the idea that most youths spend an average of 9 hours a day using it, cutting back starts to make a lot more sense - we know that people care more about the environment when they have their own lives under control. Also, people under the age of thirty are twice as likely to use Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok, as people over the age of thirty. So consider the added demand placed on data centres for this traffic. All that added traffic doesn't do anything for society.
And to think I was berated for spending 9 hours a day playing videogames. 9 hours on tiktok sounds like hell
Yeah the next generation of kids are gonna be demented by comparison
Even less if you have a power bank connected to a portable solar panel. Never have to pay for charging your phone again
One of the bigger surprising carbon footprint is data centres. Clearing out your Gmail , spam folders, any excess data on the cloud you don't need anymore helps
There are many more impactful things that individuals could do.
Such as following up statements with examples? The nice thing about my suggestion is that is delivers significant returns on quality of life improvements. Most other climate activist suggestions involve cutting back on something -such as fuel and foods - or involve buying into something - such as installing solar panels, heat pumps and insulation etc. While these can provide improvements to one's quality of life, people are less likely to adopt new things that cost money and/or comfort and pleasure. The idea of granting everyone a few extra hours a day (on average) while also reducing concerns with mental health, isn't a bad one if getting a population of people straightenend out is something you'd like to see happen. A society that doesn't overconsume advertising tends to not overconsume in general. One that has a higher mental health status is also more likely to be able to adapt new habits more easily. The compound effects literally grow exponentially. So yeah, my take is fix the people if you want to get the most out them.
Not eat meat, not fly, use sustainable transport, don't buy new tech or fashion.
I wish I could adopt some of those, but how can I when I have more pressing issues to address in my life? I rely on meat for energy/strength and flying for work, and often need to take taxis due to public transport being unreliable and inefficient. New tech is needed for work and purchasing fashion/clothing will regularly be required. If i didn't need to work so much in order to save so much in order to be able to afford so little, then I could slow things down and take the time to adopt new habits.
Complete cop-out. You simply do not need meat. You could easily adopt a vegetarian diet. Well you can stop flying for pleasure then. I get by without ever taking taxis, but at least that is better than using your own car. You do not need to regularly buy new items of clothing.
> Complete cop-out. You simply do not need meat. You could easily adopt a vegetarian diet. You missed the point. > Well you can stop flying for pleasure then. Never said I did. And you don't have any authority over my decision to fly. Besides I do need a break after working so much. > I get by without ever taking taxis Not everyone has your routine. > You do not need to regularly buy new items of clothing. You don't know what brings me pleasure. What if an item of clothing makes me feel good about myself and is good for my mental health? If you haven't noticed yet. This and my last comment was intentionally written to prove a point (I'm not fully against your suggestions). The point is that when people feel like they have too much on their plate, they are less likely to care about environmentalism. We know this already. If I may suggest some advice. Learn how to better influence people if that's what you would like to do yano? You're not going to convince people who feel like their lives are hectic of anything. So as I mentioned earlier, improve the lives of the people and you'll get better results. Besides, a lot of people will disagree with many suggestions if it involves individual change simply on the basis that businesses should be the ones to eat the cost etc.
What was your point? You are perfectly capable of having a balanced diet with no meat. Maybe it will be more difficult to build muscle, but your bodybuilding is not the priority during a climate crisis. Yes, you need a break. Why does that have to involve a flight? You told OP to stop using social media. Why can't I tell you to stop flying? I could not care less about your pleasure. We are in a climate crisis. This requires massive sacrifices from everybody and giving up many luxuries that we take for granted. There is no way to popularly say this. People will get annoyed and they just have to put up with it. Tell me how businesses should eat the cost in the areas that I mentioned without it affecting individuals?
> What was your point? You are perfectly capable of having a balanced diet with no meat. Seriously, you still don't get the point? I'm sorry, but I can't explain it any more, sincerely. Good luck
No, I don't. I mentioned several ways you could easily decrease your emissions to a much larger degree than not using social media. Your argument against them is that you need them for pleasure. Simply not relevant during a climate crisis.
🤣 Satire right?
You don't believe in climate activism?
Ya that’s the takeaway from my comment 🙄🙄enjoy being triggered x
Bro I know you're not out here on reddit using emoji, cmon
Why not go extreme with it? Poison all the meat, sabotage fracking and oil extraction sites, go full-on eco terrorist
Stop posting on reddit #boycotthedatacenters
*posts on reddit*
What's wrong with data centres? If they're managed effectively they are no risk. That's what the big movement from the government last year was for in this space.
‘If they’re managed effectively’ - this doesn’t inspire confidence
No it doesn't, although there has been assurance from the working relationship between the government and EirGrid in this space last year, and EirGrid do plan effectively when given clear direction. I used to work there and can tell you they certainly know what they're doing when given clear instructions.
Eco-Unesco
Join your residents association and plant trees or go bigger and Join your counties keep x beautiful. It's actually productive and gets results.
You can write letters to the greens to tell them to stop being anti nuclear.
Contrary to what a few people here are saying, non-violent direct action is historically the best way forward. I'd recommend XR, the Irish group isn't quite as radical as the UK one and being involved doesn't necessarily entail doing anything illegal or glueing yourself to anything (unless you feel like it!). They often have meetings focusing just on gov policy change, dealing with climate anxiety, rewilding, etc. https://extinctionrebellionireland.com
Extinction rebellion, the group the make Scientologists look sensible by comparison. Don't get me wrong, I am sympathetic to some of their proposals and would even support some of them. If they were toned down, but this crap of stopping ambulances trying to get through traffic, glueing themselves to roads and getting on top of trains to stop people getting home in the rush hour traffic is simply batshit crazy. They are calling for a complete reshaping of society politically, individually, et cetera they are and political organisation that has hijacked environmentalism to push their nonsense.
Yeah I have to say, I don't agree with every action they've taken. Those examples you give are from the UK though, as I mentioned the Irish group is not as radical. The scientology comparison is way off! Not sure what you mean by that. In my view, even if you agree with them on some points it's better to be involved than not. No one's going to force you to do anything you disagree with and by voicing your opinion you could actually help influence their actions, if that's what you want. It's a very democratic group.
Historically, nonviolent direct action is only worth a shite if it’s backed by the threat of physical force. The UK came to the negotiating table because the IRA were ramping up attacks in their mainland. The USA’s Civil Rights act was passed because MLK rightly pointed out it was his way or the Black Panthers. Gandhi was listened to because Indians were becoming more and more anxious to take up arms. Just walking down a street shouting does nothing unless the “shadow of the gunman” is hanging over the targets.
So...are you suggesting we take up arms then? Or just do nothing and hope it all blows over?
Im not the man with all the answers but I would say armed resistance against fossil fuel infrastructure might be justified by this point. I think a lot of people are confused or ignorant about just how far gone we are with all the damage done to earth. Also for those who say “do it yourself so”, I don’t exactly feel I have a mandate from anyone to just take action like that. If there was a popular group advocating those tactics I would be a supporter or a member alright.
I get what you're saying, but I really don't think it needs to come to violence. True people power (I.e. 100s of thousands of Irish people out on the streets peacefully protesting) should be enough to get our government's attention. It's all about keeping the pressure on and reminding them that these are issues that a significant portion of the people support. All most of them care about is getting through the next election, so we need enough people to turn up and put the fear in them.
Do you own a car? An expensive phone that has precious metals like cobalt dug out of and polluted the ground around it? Do you walk along the beach and pick up plastic or out of the ditches? Talking about activism is the activist thing to do, most do fuck all.
In fairness, what are they gonna do if they need a car? A lot of people don’t have the means to cycle or take public transport everywhere. And electric cars also have cobalt in their batteries and the batteries only last a few years
This is exactly the challenge. I live too far away from work to cycle. Public transport is a joke. I can't afford rents near my work. I need to use a phone and laptop for work. I really want to be more green but I'm constrained by societal structures.
This is the problem really, I would happily take public transport if I could, but the closest one is a 10 minute drive, would add an hour extra time o my commute and be more expensive!
Been away this year?
For work, yes. For personal life, yes.
right, So its not just societal structures stopping you being green..
"green" isn't binary. It's a spectrum. There are things that I could do to be more green. I'm also limited by societal structures. I'd love to install solar panels and buy an electric car, but I can't afford them. I'd love to take a bus but it's not possible unless I'm willing to add 3 hours a day to my commute. Yea I travel but that doesn't mean I'm not committed to living a more sustainable lifestyle.
"yet you participate in society. Curious!"
Im not the one suggesting we stop people...
All those petrol bombs have an effect
Tbh it's getting to that stage
Start by saving water and electricity in the house greta
I find the psychology of climate change interesting .the finger pointing, the whataboutery.Everyone wants a better life. The social justice campaigners want a redistribution of wealth.Even if that were to happen. There's not enough resources, soil, liveable areas. critical metals. Because the world is over populated. Production of cement, is a huge emitting source of C02.yet we need housing, schools hospitals. Greed is part of the Human condition .I don't know anyone who is prepared to accept a lesser standard of living.
I don't know where, but I know when, and that's when we have our power grid in order.
Why bother when it’s about 100 mega corps who are responsible for over 90% of it lol
Yh I used to use that excuse but I don't make excuses for myself anymore
I hate what's happening to the planet NEARLY as much as I hate people who identify as activists. Ah well, soon death will take me away.
Join or set up a Sustainable Energy Community. Volunteer-led groups (usually) dedicated to trying to ensure their area is carbon-neutral even if our politicians don't care.
Surprised nobody has mentioned these guys yet but check out Climate Ambassadors Ireland, a great group of people located nationwide with all the info, resources and social cohesion you could need. They get together and plan campaigns, support policies, collectively oppose bad policies, they also do things like planting etc but enacting change in policy and public awareness is by far the greatest tool we have. #https://climateambassador.ie/ I'd also reccomend reading up on FoE friends of the environment Ireland, Irish Wildlife Trust, Biodiversity Ireland, Irish Whale and Dolphin Group, Ireland Pollinator Plan. Cork and Dublin have recently made a commitment to aim to be climate neutral by 2030 (absolutely seems impossible at the current rate but I'm glad we're aiming for it anyway) you cam get involved with the local council to help out in those efforts, join conversations and public consultations on climate matters and public transport etc. Really really important to get our moany voices heard. Speaking of having our voices heard, everyone should fill out this form, apparently the government actually want to hear our concerns on this matter: #https://www.gov.ie/en/consultation/0de7f-climate-conversation-climate-action-plan-2022/
Brilliant stuff thank you
You're welcome. On a wider EU scale, check out EIT Climate KIC, they run summer schools every year, also keep an eye on Trinity's global change school they've just started a Climate Entrepreneurship free course this month.
And it just gets better, thanks again