Personal vehicles and animal agriculture are responsible for way more than 30% of emissions, it would be impossible to get 70% reduction without touching them. 100% reduction is not possible, necessary, or desirable, some industry is necessary to maintain basic necessities.
I think what you’re trying to say is that it’s necessary to address personal vehicles and animal agriculture to adequately address climate change, which is true and valid. But the way you’ve phrased it comes across as unreasonable.
I’m not NT but maybe I can give some advice, constructive criticism as someone who agrees with your overall point.
I think being generous on that point backfired because it made the other changes seem less necessary. It meant being more insistent on other points, which are more subjective, like, “exactly where do you draw the line between sacrificing for the environment vs maintaining quality of life?” It’s better to be generous on questions like that while sticking to your guns on facts you can support with data.
It could also help to point out that lifestyle changes are something people can do right now, while regulations have to go through political processes with lots of money working against them.
Also I just realized you may have been referencing carbon neutrality when you say “100% reduction.” The way I (and I think others) interpreted it was not “net zero emissions” but just “zero emissions.” The planet removes some carbon naturally, so it’s ok to have some pollution, we don’t need to go back to living in mud huts or anything. The question is, where can we get the most bang for our buck in reducing overall emissions to bring us closer to net zero, and the answers are the things you mentioned.
Yeah, I meant carbon neutrality. Carbon neutrality is the first step to preventing runaway climate collapse. When we reach carbon neutrality, it’ll keep getting hotter, but the rate at which it gets hotter won’t be increasing anymore. We need to be carbon negative in order to prevent further warming.
We’re still going to need to have some emissions, like from farting, but meat and cars are easy to get rid of. Those changes actually have a negative cost, because cars and meat are already bad for reasons besides climate change. I got rid of them and it was easy and it made my life better.
I would want to get rid of meat and cars before we get rid of things like intercontinental container ships. Those ships are actually super efficient for the amount of cargo they carry, and I think intercontinental trade is an absolute necessity. The main problem with container ships is just how much disposable garbage we’re shipping and how much we’ve moved away from local industry. But intercontinental industry is definitely going to be a necessity in some ways if we want to have an advanced society. Cheeseburgers? Not so much.
Personal vehicles and animal agriculture are responsible for way more than 30% of emissions, it would be impossible to get 70% reduction without touching them. 100% reduction is not possible, necessary, or desirable, some industry is necessary to maintain basic necessities.
I think what you’re trying to say is that it’s necessary to address personal vehicles and animal agriculture to adequately address climate change, which is true and valid. But the way you’ve phrased it comes across as unreasonable.
Neurotypicals are so picky. I deliberately tell them 70% might be possible just to seem extra reasonable and concilatory, and it’s still not enough.
I’m not NT but maybe I can give some advice, constructive criticism as someone who agrees with your overall point.
I think being generous on that point backfired because it made the other changes seem less necessary. It meant being more insistent on other points, which are more subjective, like, “exactly where do you draw the line between sacrificing for the environment vs maintaining quality of life?” It’s better to be generous on questions like that while sticking to your guns on facts you can support with data.
It could also help to point out that lifestyle changes are something people can do right now, while regulations have to go through political processes with lots of money working against them.
Also I just realized you may have been referencing carbon neutrality when you say “100% reduction.” The way I (and I think others) interpreted it was not “net zero emissions” but just “zero emissions.” The planet removes some carbon naturally, so it’s ok to have some pollution, we don’t need to go back to living in mud huts or anything. The question is, where can we get the most bang for our buck in reducing overall emissions to bring us closer to net zero, and the answers are the things you mentioned.
Yeah, I meant carbon neutrality. Carbon neutrality is the first step to preventing runaway climate collapse. When we reach carbon neutrality, it’ll keep getting hotter, but the rate at which it gets hotter won’t be increasing anymore. We need to be carbon negative in order to prevent further warming.
We’re still going to need to have some emissions, like from farting, but meat and cars are easy to get rid of. Those changes actually have a negative cost, because cars and meat are already bad for reasons besides climate change. I got rid of them and it was easy and it made my life better.
I would want to get rid of meat and cars before we get rid of things like intercontinental container ships. Those ships are actually super efficient for the amount of cargo they carry, and I think intercontinental trade is an absolute necessity. The main problem with container ships is just how much disposable garbage we’re shipping and how much we’ve moved away from local industry. But intercontinental industry is definitely going to be a necessity in some ways if we want to have an advanced society. Cheeseburgers? Not so much.
Based. I’ve also cut out meat and got rid of my car (have had to rent/borrow bc reasons) and yeah I agree with you 100%.