Are Lifestyle Changes needed to Confront the Climate Crisis?
This post provides a link to an article from "Inside Climate News" about methane emissions stemming from agriculture. Should people reduce their consumption of dairy products and meat, particularly beef? Will doing so make a difference? Are people willing to change? What can - or should be done - to persuade people? What arguments might be influential?
https://insideclimatenews.org/todaysclimate/the-paris-agreement-will-fail-without-slashing-methane-emissions-from-dairy-and-meat-researchers-say/
It's hard to ask a country like the United States that's built on agriculture and long distance transportation of agricultural products to make the switch just like that. Arguments from the NIH (https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/risk-red-meat) that consumption of red meat increases risk of cardiovascular disease may sway people. Dairy is a big issue for the lactose intolerant people of the world, and foods high in dairy have a lot of saturated fat that increases risk for type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, and many cancers. Alone, medical reasoning will not convince people to cut these foods from our diets. We've seen this from COVID-19--not everyone trusts medicine that easily. Increasing the prices of these products alongside restricting the agricultural industry's production of them may have a bigger impact and thus forcing people to cut, or at least reduce, the amount of meat and dairy they consume in order to reduce methane emissions.
ReplyDeleteSophia,
DeleteYou make an excellent point regarding the fact that it would be tough to convince American society that they should eat less meat and dairy products as it would benefit their health and the environment's health. Increasing the prices of meat and dairy products and restricting the production of such products would help our society. How do you propose this idea to the public, and who would enforce such a rule? Also, would educating the community on reducing food waste support your cause while providing a solution to a possibly outraged society?
It can be really challenging to ask everyone in the United States to stop eating red meat and dairy products. I think that we should focus on changing the ways that cooperation processes their meat that produces methane emissions. I think that people will not change, it is nearly impossible, therefore I think that there is a chance that the cooperation can still change their doing. Meat and dairy are essential to an American's diet, and although, they can lead to long-term health conditions, it is impossible to just wipe beef and dairy products off U.S. shelves for good. An alternative to beef is plant-based beef, this is a sustainable approach to the process of red meat.
ReplyDeleteHey Kevin! I agree with what you said here and just to expand on it a bit more, I think it comes down to not only red meat and dairy products being ingrained in the lifestyles of millions of Americans but also that pushing people towards reducing or eliminating their intake is a way for the large corporations who pollute the most to sort of push the blame away from themselves and make the consumers feel bad for the corporations actions. Of course if we all suddenly shifted away from red meat and dairy some of these problems would be solved, but as you mentioned, this is nearly impossible and I feel as though the focus and blame should be shifted away from the consumer and onto those who pollute the most and who own and operate companies that have detrimental effects on the environment. I read an article recently (I'll link it here) https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220504-why-the-wrong-people-are-blamed-for-climate-change that does a much better job at explaining all this than I do and it's super interesting to hear about what goes on behind the scenes and the ways that corporations push the blame around onto the consumers instead of taking accountability themselves.
DeleteHi Kevin! I also agree with you. The american diet relies so heavily on meat and dairy for protein sources, much more than other cultures. While plant based meat may be a better alternative there are many sources that show there could be more negative health affects than just consuming regular meet. But there are so many alternative protein sources like tofu, beans and even broccoli.
DeleteI would suggest watching the documentary "The Game Changers" that is located on Netflix. It displays how these top athletes are able to fuel their body on planet based energy and is pretty interesting to watch.
In the United States, they demand a lot of meat from all over the nation. I was surprised by the amount of red meat consumed in North America in comparison to other parts of the world. We consume a lot more than we think. However, there has to be a change. We know that is a major factor in of climate change, so it will surely make a difference if we can do something about it. My suggestion for this is to show how the majority of our meat is processed and advertise people to consume less red meat. Chickens, cows, and pigs are fed without limit and are forced to grow at an exponential rate, defying their natural rate of growth. This is done through hormones or forceful consumptions as a result of high meat demands, especially red meat. If one sees any documentary on where the meat they consume comes from, they will likely consume less meat and/or look for alternatives. The argument that the meat they consume was almost artificially created through hormones and high demand will be influential enough in bring changes.
ReplyDeleteHere is an article proving my point of North America's meat consumptions and portrays the realistic possibility of cutting a portion of red meat from American diet. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/climate/what-if-we-all-ate-a-bit-less-meat.html
Although I agree that the US does demand a lot of meat and dairy products in general causing the greenhouse gases that are produced by agriculture in the US to be about 11.2% according to the USDA. We do need to decrease the number of emissions caused by agriculture but changing the way people eat is incredibly hard. We have grown up in a culture of meat/dairy product consumption and it had been embedded in our daily diet. I do agree that people should be aware of what they're putting into their bodies but I don't believe advertisements will do it justice, people will continue to eat what they want unless the government changes something within the policy.
DeleteAccording to https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/climate-change/#:~:text=Agricultural%20Greenhouse%20Gas%20Emissions&text=The%20greenhouse%20gases%20with%20the,oxide%20(N2O). agriculture greenhouse total emission is the lowest out of industrial, transportation, residential, and commercial. I'd say we have to target the "Big Boy" such as the industrial making up 30.3% of our general greenhouse gasses. I believe that the US government needs to implement a stricter policy on the gas emission of industries.
I agree that people should reduce their consumption of meat and dairy products, since they have such a detrimental impact on the environment from potent greenhouse gas emissions via methane and there are a plethora of substitutes available (other non-dairy milk substitutes, tofu or other meat replacements). I thought the statistic provided at the end of the article was good evidence for the fact that people can change (that students reduced their consumption of meat by 9% over a period of years after listening to one 50 minute lecture on the climactic benefits of reducing meat consumption). I think this shows that people's behavior can change, especially through mechanisms like educational campaigns. With this said, I think educational campaigns should be used as a tool to aim at reducing meat consumption. Arguments that might be influential would appeal to things people care about, like preserving the world for their children, preserving outdoor spaces they enjoy, etc.
ReplyDeleteIn the United States the consumption for dairy product and meat is very high. Since the dairy/beef industry is a big producer of emissions contributing to climate change I believe people should reduce their consumption in this category. Although this isn't an easy task reducing consumption is one of the best ways to slow down production since demand is so high. Thankfully these days lots of other alternatives to meat and dairy have started popping up and I feel like they are not a bad thing. If people want to help make a change they have to give an effort and this would help the climate change issue in alot of ways.
ReplyDeleteReducing the consumption of meat and dairy in the United States is likely to be difficult, given that the US is already a leading consumer of meat and dairy in the world. In fact, the US has been shown to be the number one meat consumer (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/these-countries-eat-the-most-meat-03bdf469-f40a-41e3-ade7-fe4ddb2a709a/), according to the World Economic Forum, and while the US does not top the list for dairy consumption, other relatively progressive Scandinavian countries such as Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway have extraordinarily high dairy consumption rates per capita (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_milk_consumption_per_capita), even higher than the US, with Finland at number one with around 430.76kg of consumed dairy per capita per year.
DeleteWhat can be done is to curb the consumption of dairy and meat altogether (reducing the amount of consumption), and what could also be done is to make the production of dairy and meat more environmentally sustainable in the meantime. In effect, this would look like increased regulations on dairy and meat producers, and this would likely raise the price (which itself would help to reduce dairy and meat consumption).
As someone who enjoys to eat cheeseburgers, steaks, and pretty much any kind of dairy or cow product, I believe it would be very difficult to convince a society to forgo red meat for the good of the planet when it is a struggle for us all to agree on increasing funding for education. Both concepts are very similar and generally impactful on our society yet there is an apparent split in how people would solve the solution. If a solution was established to decrease the overall consumption of cow and dairy products, the decrease of cows would definitely have an impact. This is due to the large majority of methane emissions being produced by cows. In a study done by UC Davis, researchers found that "Cattle are the No. 1 agricultural source of greenhouse gases worldwide." So, given the reduction of cattle due to less need for access to cow meat and dairy following the reduction of consumption, there would be an impact on greenhouse gas problems.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/making-cattle-more-sustainable
Yes, decreased consumption of beef would help reduce greenhouse gasses, as was mentioned in the study you cited.
DeleteHowever, as you described yourself in your personal situation, it is not likely that many Americans will reduce their meat consumption upon hearing this information about greenhouse gas emissions. The solution to this problem has yet to be determined, since persuading Americans to reduce their beef consumption has proven to be a difficult task.
Thank you for sharing the link to this important article from "Inside Climate News". The issue of methane emissions from agriculture is a crucial one that requires our attention. Its concerning that researchers are saying the Paris Agreement will fail without cutting methane emissions from dairy and meat. Convincing people to change their eating habits is not an easy task. There are many factors to consider, including cultural and personal preferences, as well as economic and social factors. Providing information and educating about the impact of meat and daily production on the environment can be a powerful argument. Sharing personal stories and experiences can also be influential. Making plant-based options more accessible and affordable can be an effective strategy.
ReplyDeleteThe implementation and wide-spread adopted mindset of the need to reduce fossil-fuel emissions has been a long process and still hasn't been accepted by all. To this day, we still argue about whether it's truly worth it to reduce fossil fuel emissions. It would be a tremendous task to not only argue for the limitation of fossil fuel, but to then also persuade society to limit their beef and dairy consumption. One degree of warming from only agriculture alone is an incredibly high amount, but it isn't likely that this fact alone will be enough to convince the general public that this is a crisis of major proportions. I noticed that plant-based options were mentioned in other comments, which would be a great idea if those options were improved like how electric options for vehicles and power are being improved today. Better options and accessibility for those options are imperative if we are to decrease carbon emissions from agriculture.
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing this information to the class. After reading that article you posted above it is clear that eating less meat (particularly beef) would help directly reduce the negative effects on the environment. The evidence for this would be when they said "the researchers said that if everyone limited red meat to a single serving per week, for example, it would prevent nearly a third of the additional warming projected by their model." So with being presented with this evidence, the question is now: Are people willing to decrease their red meat consumption to a single serving per week?
ReplyDeleteWhile I believe that reducing the consumption of meat and dairy products would be very useful in reducing the amount of emissions over the next decade, I don't know how well America would do at that task. With the consumption of meat and dairy products set to rise 15% by 2031, it would take a drastic shift in policy to somehow bring this down. With Americans being as dependent on red meat and dairy products, as they are, there needs to be continued talks about the consequences of this dependence. The only way to make a positive change is to educate the people that are consuming the most amounts of these products. In my opinion, to educate people on this topic global warming needs to become more personalized. People may not realize the true consequences of their actions until it begins to affect somewhere/something they care about. Better food options and a widespread support for these options is a positive step that we could take to reduce the meat and dairy consumption, and the methane production.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I believe encouraging individuals to adopt a plant-based diet is a complex task that requires a multi-faceted approach. By educating the public, promoting plant-based alternatives, shifting cultural norms, and encouraging policy changes, it may be possible to reduce methane emissions from animal agriculture and promote more sustainable diets. For example, promoting plant-based alternatives might be the quickest way to sway over people because according to the National Library of Medicine, a plant-based lifestyle is a low-risk, cost-effective strategy that has the potential to reduce blood pressure, cholesterol, and BMI. They could also cut death rates from ischemic heart disease and decrease the quantity of drugs required for managing chronic illnesses. I would assume everyone wants to live longer, therefore, reducing the amount of diseases would give them a reason to switch over. More information regarding plant based diets could be found below.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/#:~:text=Research%20shows%20that%20plant%2Dbased,ischemic%20heart%20disease%20mortality%20rates.
While I do agree with what people are saying about reducing meat and dairy consumption, I want to suggest that we have already been undertaking this change. Vegetarianism and veganism, alongside similar concepts such as pescatarianism and "Meatless Mondays", have been catching on in recent years.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that asking the US to move away from red meat consumption will really be so unthinkable. I'm of the belief that people who don't enjoy vegetables just don't know how to cook them properly. What they know is soggy canned green beans, beans which are grainy and flavorless, or spinach that's been sauteed to such an awful degree that it's brown! Many culturally-ingrained dishes are red meat dependent across many ethnicities in the US, but many vegetable or fish/poultry based meals are also there. I think that part of asking people to cut out red meat is also asking them to embrace other ways of eating. We have to offer them something to replace what they will be giving up.
I think this is a very important issue, as many humans rely on the consumption of meat and dairy products for their daily eating. However, I didn't realize how much this consumption can actually increase global warming. This is an important issue that is prevalent in many people's lives. This article provides evidence that decreasing meat and dairy consumption can actually decrease agricultural emissions and may mitigate the negative effects caused by global warming. Although this may be true, I think it will be very challenging for most people to give up their consumption of meat and dairy to mitigate the effects of climate change. I advocate that there should be more exposure to this idea in order to possibly persuade people to change their eating habits.
ReplyDeleteFrom an environmental perspective, the production of animal based foods, specifically beef, lead to a high emission of greenhouse gasses, water use, and land use. If there were to be a reduction in meat and dairy consumption it may lead to a positive impact for the environment. Additionally, research has been done and shows that a plant-based diet can have a wide range of health benefits. According to an article written by the MD Anderson Cancer Center, a plant based diet reduces your risk of many diseases including but not limited to heart disease, stroke, diabetes and some mental illnesses. However the difficult part may be persuading people to change their eating habits. One influential argument is the impact of animal agriculture on our environment, including deforestation and greenhouse gasses.
ReplyDeleteLink: https://www.mdanderson.org/publications/focused-on-health/5-benefits-of-a-plant-based-diet.h20-1592991.html#:~:text=The%20benefits%20of%20eating%20mostly,and%20some%20mental%20health%20illnesses.
While it is clear that an abundance of the worlds CO2 emissions come from the dairy and red meat industries, I think it is important to consider the way of life for the majority of people. I think it is a near impossible task to ask or enforce everyone to stop eating red meat. As much as it would help, I don't think this is a possible solution. However, what we can do is regulate and tax carbon emissions and invest in solutions the effect of CO2 Emissions. In order to ensure that companies account for their share of CO2 emissions is by establishing laws to enforce companies of high CO2 emissions to contribute to fixing the problem they apart of. As I thought that something around these lines would be a good solution, I did some researching, only to find that laws/regulations like this are already being deployed daily. I read a Forbes article, (Link below) by Ariel Cohen, and learned about the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. (CBAM) This essentially allows the EU to charge an import fee for the CO2 emissions released during manufacturing of the imported product. By establishing more policies like this one, especially towards companies in the red meat and dairy industries we can enforce them to establish solutions and pay for the harm they are causing until a solution is found.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2023/03/15/bipartisan-carbon-border-adjustment-mechanisma-political-unicorn/?sh=50fcde0168df
While I agree that the path we're going on is wrong and will have major consequences in the future, I do not think the public will take switching their diet that drastically lightly. However, with that being said, we need to lower our methane consumption fast. I found this article very interesting as it dives into ideas and facts that I've never heard about before and isn't talked about as much as CO2 and other big ideas alike. I found the 80% greater effectiveness of methane to be super surprising. Some solutions to slow this can be to educate adults not only on how red meats and other animal products contribute so drastically to climate change but also give them application on their lives, such as health benefits.
ReplyDeleteI found this article, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/01/230123200338.htm#:~:text=The%20team%20brought%20the%20cost,metric%20ton%20of%20CO2, from Science Daily that talks about the development of a new carbon trapping technology that not only traps it from going to the atmosphere, but repurposes it into usable chemicals.
This is a complicated issue, should people reduce their consumption of dairy products and meat? If climate change is our big concern, then the answer is yes. The article makes it quite clear how the production of those types of things releases a ton of methane, and reducing the consumption would slice global warming by a solid portion. Cutting on meat and dairy would certainly make a difference, no doubt. But is it feasible? Not in our current landscape. Our culture here in the US values consuming lots of meat, and it's highly unlikely that just asking people will produce any change, trying to enforce it may result in backlash politically too. The only possible way I could see consumption going down is if the government pulled the plug on it's subsidies to the meat/dairy industry. Then people would be forced to pay the true price for these products, and consumption would go down.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, it's a tough question, undoubtedly, I don't like the idea of cutting down on meat, but perhaps we all need to play our part to fight agaisnt climate change.
Here's a neat website I was introduced to in my sustainability class last term, it takes all sorts of metrics like your meat consumed per week, where you get your food from, how big your house is, your transportation consumption and more, and gives you a nice graphic of how many earths would be required to support life if all people lived your lifestyle. It really puts your lifestyle into perspective, and may even incline you to be more willing to adjust your lifestyle: https://www.footprintcalculator.org/home/en
I definitely feel that lifestyle changes are required in order to confront the climate crisis. However, I think that these changes could be done gradually rather than through widespread drastic changes in policy. Things like initiatives and incentives in using renewable energy as well as better education about the carbon footprint and small ways to improve it. While one individual making a small change in their lifestyle may not make a large impact against the climate crisis as a whole, large populations, through small incremental changes can definitely make a substantial difference. For example, in an article published in Nature Food in 2021, found that small targeted dietary changes can lead to substantial gains for both human health as well as the environment (Stylianou et al., 2021).
ReplyDeleteStylianou, K. S., Fulgoni, V. L., & Jolliet, O. (2021). Small targeted dietary changes can yield substantial gains for human health and the environment. Nature Food, 2(8), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00343-4
There is no one straight solution to this problem as this would get complicated when you get to the details. But I do agree that lifestyle changes are ideal in order to confront climate change. However, the with the United States having a very high consumption meat and diary each year, with citizens eating an average of around 97kg per year (1) ; would have a very hard time adapting to new and greener diets. I feel like a bigger promotion of healthier alternatives on media would be helpful in the transition, instead of seeing meaty burgers on ads; there could be vegetable dishes or products like beyond meat. Products like beyond meat uses less land, water, and produces far less greenhouse gasses than traditional beef (2). Instead of cutting out all meat and diary to confront climate change, I feel like a more realistic option would be gradually replace those products with a more climate friendly alternative.
ReplyDelete(1) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/these-countries-eat-the-most-meat-03bdf469-f40a-41e3-ade7-fe4ddb2a709a/#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20tops%20the,per%20year%20than%20the%20US.
(2) https://sustainablereview.com/is-beyond-meat-sustainable/#:~:text=Beyond%20Meat%20uses%2099%25%20less,than%20a%20traditional%20beef%20burger.
I think the current consumption of meat is something we will not see change. As we become more of an advanced society, eating more meat is one of the products as agriculture starts to become more streamlined and modernized than ever. According to an article from DW, per capita consumption of meat has been almost doubled since the 1960s. Also, another interesting point that this article makes is that generally higher income countries generally consume more meat. (1) From this, it's important to ask ourselves: How can we ourselves ethically consume meat?
ReplyDeleteWe start by recognizing our individual footprint on the earth. There's a really interesting calculator I found here: https://www.footprintcalculator.org/en/quiz/0/food/source that can show you what your current ecological footprint is based off on consumption of certain products, qualities of your home, and life style. From this we can evaluate ourselves, and recognize the possible negative impacts on the world we might not even know were making.
From this, we can change our consumption of meat in general also. According to a UN article, about 14% of all our emissions come from meat and dairy production. With that, reducing our intake of meat from a couple to multiple times a weak to maybe once a week can create a significant impact on our ecological to the earth. (2)
These methods are a large shift in lifestyle, but are just one of the many ways we can go about changing our individual ecological footprint on this earth.
(1) https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-eating-meat-bad-for-the-environment/a-63595148
(2) https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/how-eating-less-meat-can-reduce-our-carbon-emissions/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20UN's%20Food,to%20reduce%20your%20portion%20sizes.
I definitely think it would be very difficult to get any large group of people to change their diet in such a seemingly drastic way. However, I think that reading this article changed my perspective a little. I had always thought that decreasing my individual consumption wouldn't change that much, but after seeing some of the statistics in the article, my mind changed.
ReplyDeleteI think that lifestyle changes can be very helpful to combat the climate crisis, but it isn't necessary. I think that we shouldn't force anyone to change their lifestyles even if it will be for the benefit of the earth. Things like eating less meat products and walking, biking, and taking mass transportation can all help to fight the climate crisis, but you can't force that on anyone. I think that the only ways to influence a change in lifestyle are through government intervention such as higher taxes or a change in social norms. This can then lead to people starting to adopt a new lifestyle that can be beneficial for the planet.
ReplyDeleteAlthough lifestyle changes would be very beneficial towards climate change, I believe that lifestyle changes are harder to change then industry changes. Convincing people to not eat meat is harder to do since it's such a big norm within our society to consume meat daily and taking that away and eating 1 red meat serving per week would be very difficult. Especially when stated in the article that only 9% of students ate less meat after listening to a 50-min talk on environmental harms caused by raising and consuming livestock. While it doesn't specify how much less meat each student ate, they most likely didn't reduce their consumption of red meats to 1 serving per week.
ReplyDeleteWhat could be done to create a domino effect and cause more people to eat less red meats is to tax methane production. Through the tax of methane production, raising livestock would become more expensive and farmers would compensate for that through raising the price. The price increase would convince people to opt for other options since the price wouldn't be as affordable or worth it. Taxing methane also create funds that can be put towards funding more climate action plans.
While taxing methane could potentially persuade more people to buy less meat, taxing meats based off of GHG emissions could also help. According to the National Library of Medicine, "modelling studies showed that taxing foods based on their GHG emissions decreases beef/ruminant consumption, with an average decrease of 15.4%" (1). Taxing meats that have higher GHG emissions would convince people to choose the cheaper options that produce less GHG emissions.
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9031643/#:~:text=Generally%2C%20modelling%20studies%20showed%20that,of%2049.0%25%20%5B63%5D.
I can see that the U.S. will have a hard time changing their lifestyle, especially in things involving diet and goods. Most of our products come from imports, with imports needing a source of transportation to be able to be moved around. In a perfect world, reducing the consumption of red meat will definitely help in lowering emission rates. However, the idea of change is not popular among most people as people like to stay on a routine-based timeline. Personally, I am open into changing my diet and lifestyle to help decrease greenhouse gases.
ReplyDeleteLife style changes are somewhat necessary to combat climate change as the lifestyles that many people in the U.S. live are that of wasteful consumers. Though I believe many people would be more open to making changes to their lifestyles if it was easy to do so. For example many countries have efficient public transit which cuts down on emissions from vehicles and they also use less plastic in their packaging. If the U.S. were to implement more ways to make being eco friendly convenient it would make people willing to switch. Also by implementing rules to companies to do things more ecofriendly then it would cut down on lots of fossil fuel usage and greenhouse gas emissions.
ReplyDeleteI think certain lifestyle changes are necessary to an extent, regarding helping to combat climate change. The general public can help play a role in helping the environment, but I think in general the root of the issue are big corporations and monopolies that play a huge role in carbon emissions. I think that if a significant number of people such as millions of people, were to stop eating meat, then it would make a difference.
ReplyDeleteChanges to the lifestyles of millions or billions of people show a great change in CO2 emissions mathematically, but unfortunately such consideration are often spawned from corporate interests attempting to misdirect our focus onto ourselves. One of the first carbon footprint calculators was released by British Petroleum as a scheme to shift the blame of climate change away from the 100 corporations that create 70% of emissions onto the common man whose actions and individual choices have virtually no effect on the world at large.
ReplyDeleteShould people reduce their consumption of dairy products and meat, particularly beef? Will doing so make a difference? Are people willing to change? What can - or should be done - to persuade people? What arguments might be influential?
ReplyDeleteI do believe certain lifestyle changes must be incorporated in households across the globe, because of the concerning amount of CO2 emissions from cattle. Unfortunately, not everyone enjoys the meat alternatives or the dairy alternatives and doesn't want to transition from cow products to chicken, or meat alternatives. I don't believe that we have enough people in the world, currently, who want to change from cow products to alternatives, to really make a difference. Implementing advertisements and better education on the subject may sway more families to switch to cow alternatives.
Its true that if we wanted to make a bigger difference in the climate change issue, we as a society, would have to make changes to our daily routine such as how we go places, what we eat, what we buy, and how we deal with our waste. These things may seem like a lot to ask from society as people are prone to not like change in routine. Especially if they have been used to it for years. However, one thing that everyone can do and doesn't disrupt routine as much as the other things is recycling and making sure you deal with your trash and waste in an efficient manner and using the right waste bins. One thing that would be really difficult if not near impossible to do is to switch people from gas cars to electric cars. Electric cars save the planet from a lot of CO2 emissions, but they are very costly and have a lot of stigma against them for those who are used tp their loud and flashy gas cars. Here is an article that explains nine things that anyone can do to decrease their carbon footprint.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.imperial.ac.uk/stories/climate-action/
Honestly, I do not believe that lifestyle changes are the end-all solution to climate change or even a large factor in it. I believe that the case of personal responsibility for climate change is a misinterpretation/communication of the statistics surrounding the phenomenon, whether malicious or not. The vast majority of pollutants come from places such as transportation, manufacturing, and power-providing industries. While the demand for things like electric vehicles and electrified power grid can be drove by people, we can't reasonably expect people to change their behaviors in a coordinated manner to put a significant dent in the climate crisis.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions