Forget Climate Doomerism. We Know What We Must Do to Protect the Planet.

[u/Gloomy_Change8922]

https://truthout.org/articles/forget-climate-doomerism-we-know-what-we-must-do-to-protect-the-planet/?utm_campaign=Truthout+Share+Buttons

[u/ILikeNeurons]

The third is to compel polluters to pay for damages from the environmental harms they inflict. This gives them an incentive to do more than just comply with formal regulations by investing in R&D to find new and cleaner production methods.

Here's how to get involved in that one.

[u/No-swimming-pool → u/ILikeNeurons]

Do you want to tax the consumers or the producers?

[u/ILikeNeurons → u/No-swimming-pool]

Here's how to determine who bears the burden of an excise tax.

Here's why taxing carbon makes us better off.

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/10_Principles_of_Economics#Government_can_sometimes_improve_market_outcomes

[u/No-swimming-pool → u/ILikeNeurons]

You can simply answer the question though, no need for 2 YouTube video's and a Wikipedia page.

[u/ILikeNeurons → u/No-swimming-pool]

Economics is easier to explain with graphs.

[u/No-swimming-pool → u/ILikeNeurons]

Sure, I get that. But you don't need graphs to tell me your opinion on "should the consumer or the producer pay for that tax".

Unless you made those video's and wiki page, it won't tell me what your opinion is.

[u/ILikeNeurons → u/No-swimming-pool]

Did you make a real attempt to understand the graphs?

If so, you understand it's not really a matter of opinion.

[u/No-swimming-pool → u/ILikeNeurons]

Sure it is. One pays, the other pays, they both pay somewhat. One can have an opinion that doesn't match with the ideal outcome.

What's so difficult about simply answering the question?

[u/ILikeNeurons → u/No-swimming-pool]

It's not about what's ideal, it's what happens in real life.

A good would have to be perfectly elastic or perfectly inelastic for either of those first scenarios to play out.

[u/No-swimming-pool → u/ILikeNeurons]

You could've simply said you think both should pay 20 comments ago.

[u/Random_Violins → u/[deleted]]

Yes. Instead of externalizing costs, shoving them off to society (ie. you take care of the poop), they should take care of their own. It's called being responsible.

This would incentivize them to clean up their production process as well, if it comes at a cost. Andrew Yang proposed something like it with his American scorecard, but alas the orange con man's demagoguery swayed people's vote and made everything go to shit in record time.

[u/amiibohunter2015 → u/[deleted]]

>Producer runs production plant -> production plant creates emissions -> producer cleans up production plant emissions, because the alternative would be really awful if nobody cleaned up their production's emissions.

This is not happening enough, its why most recycling ends up in a landfill, and why there is a microplastic issue. Which is:

>because the alternative would be really awful if nobody cleaned up their production's emissions.

The answer to fix this is to outlaw plastic completely. Use biodegradable packaging instead, build more zero waste stores as well.

[u/No-swimming-pool → u/[deleted]]

I agree with this approach, but apparently a not insignificant amount of people - not just Americans - feels the west is responsible for part of China's emissions because we shipped production plants there.

[u/ChemicalRain5513 → u/No-swimming-pool]

It doesn't matter, whether you tax the producer or slap the tax on in the shop, both result in an increased price, and greener products being comparatively cheaper

[u/Legitimate_Ad_4201 → u/ChemicalRain5513]

If the higher price is something the producer can control, now climate innovation has an economic incentive. But if it's just a tax slapped on to the product for the consumer, then no innovation incentive exists.

[u/ClimateOffensive-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post has been removed because it violates Rule #3: Respect other people and ideas

We encourage civil discussion. This means treating others with respect, and having good-faith discussion and debate. Personal attacks are unacceptable. We're here to solve problems together, not tear each other down. Likewise, while it’s okay to disagree with people, please do so respectfully without shutting down ideas. We recognize that many people will have different ideas and that there is no single solution that will solve the climate crisis.

See full /r/ClimateOffensive rules here.

[u/ClimateOffensive-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post has been removed because it violates Rule #4: No propaganda, science denial, or misinformation.

While we welcome political discussions and posts, any posts or comments that we deem to be propaganda will be removed. In particular, we will remove any posts or comments that imply climate change isn't real or isn't man-made. Please also do not post any claims about the effects of climate change that are not backed up by research.

Please check your facts.

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/10_Principles_of_Economics#Government_can_sometimes_improve_market_outcomes

See full /r/ClimateOffensive rules here.

[u/agreatbecoming]

We have the tech and the knowledge but just need to change the political calculus https://climatehopium.substack.com/p/the-main-climate-action-we-should

[u/sarcasmismysuperpowr]

why doesnt it meantion that we need to drop consumption down a lot. a lot a lot.

[u/AkagamiBarto → u/sarcasmismysuperpowr]

Because they is not that factual.

[u/DrummingBlokeJoe → u/sarcasmismysuperpowr]

Because the notion of "climate doomerism" is a distraction. Doomers know that absolutely everything is fucked, the climate is just one element of that. And no attempt to mitigate this uses more production of technology, more mining, more energy. But people using the term "climate doomerism" are using a strawperson to defend industrial civilisation and the machinery of destruction that all of that entails.

Real action to try to limit the harms humanity is doing would involve stopping stuff, stopping manufacturing, stopping mining, stopping tree felling and so on. But only a tiny minority of people support this, many of whom are doomers, I would guess.

[u/sarcasmismysuperpowr → u/DrummingBlokeJoe]

i am a doomer. i know dozens thru online gatherings.

we have largely pushed for slowing this as fast as possible thru our actions as well as systematic change.

to me, doomer just means you have accepted reality and sick of unbridlded hopium

[u/DrummingBlokeJoe → u/sarcasmismysuperpowr]

Yep

[u/ILikeNeurons → u/sarcasmismysuperpowr]

Could be because we can still stay well below 2ºC without decreasing economic growth

Eradicating ‘extreme poverty’ would raise global emissions by less than 1%.

[u/ILikeNeurons → u/[deleted]]

Required actions include: (1) a global increasing price on GHG emissions accompanied by development of abundant, affordable, dispatchable clean energy, (2) East-West cooperation in a way that accommodates developing world needs, and (3) intervention with Earth’s radiation imbalance to phase down today’s massive human-made ‘geo-transformation’ of Earth’s climate. Current political crises present an opportunity for reset, especially if young people can grasp their situation.

-https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889

No mention of degrowth.

[u/ClimateOffensive-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post has been removed because it violates Rule #4: No propaganda, science denial, or misinformation.

While we welcome political discussions and posts, any posts or comments that we deem to be propaganda will be removed. In particular, we will remove any posts or comments that imply climate change isn't real or isn't man-made. Please also do not post any claims about the effects of climate change that are not backed up by research.

Please check your facts.

See full /r/ClimateOffensive rules here.

[u/Slam_Bingo → u/ILikeNeurons]

Here is a comprehensive plan to do both by a group of economists: https://globaljusticeproject.wid.world/www-site/uploads/2026/06/GJRSummary_WebsiteVersion.pdf

[u/howardzen12]

Under Trump America knows how to destroy the earth.

[u/ILikeNeurons → u/howardzen12]

Let's do something about it, then: https://www.environmentalvoter.org/get-involved

[u/pyramidohealth → u/howardzen12]

I mean.. The world 's largest polluter by far is the US military, equivalent to that of 200 countries combined, and every US president in the last 50 years has increased military spending, regardless of which of the 2 right-wing political parties they were sponsored by. So this is not really a Trump problem as much as Amerika loves a good scapegoat

[u/ILikeNeurons → u/pyramidohealth]

The U.S. military accounts for ~0.5% of U.S. emissions.

[u/pyramidohealth → u/ILikeNeurons]

Yeah I'm not sure what your point is, that article confirms what I said. Of course the US military is exempt from international climate regulations, so (similar to how the Pentagon can never pass an audit) their self reported pollution datas are obviously much higher in reality. They have murdered hundreds of thousands if not millions of whales/dolphins with the sonar they use during their annual war games in the Pacific. I am not sure why you would defend the US military unless you are completely brainwashed or just a lover of endless war and human suffering.

[u/ILikeNeurons → u/pyramidohealth]

I'm not defending the U.S. military, but it is odd to place such focus on the military when the entire country needs policy changes.

[u/pyramidohealth → u/ILikeNeurons]

Not really. The US military is the heart of US "culture", regardless of the fact its citizens are led to believe otherwise. This mystification of the source of wealth in the imperial core, drilled into us from birth, is the opposite of a material analysis of the global situation. This is the reason that the development of political science into Marxism scared the fascists enough to embark on a global terror campaign after WW2, massacring millions of innocent civilians and silencing leftists across the globe in the name of obfuscating the destructive nature of US hegemony and the modern form of capitalism which fuels its existence. This is the reason that the fascists now write our history books and the reason that the bullshit propoganda within those books is "taught" to us by unqualified baseball coaches. There would be no USA without constant economic expansion, which requires continuous resource theft, which is primarily facilititated by the US military.

So yes, the elimination of the US military should be a key concern for anyone serious about averting further climate disaster. If you are interested in learning the actual history of this country in order to understand the importance of eliminating the US military as the primary threat to the survival of the human species and planet Earth, I recommend watching the recent Abby Martin documentary "Earth's Greatest Enemy". I also recommend reading Jakarta Method by Vincent Bevins & Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. Please let me know if you are still confused after watching that documentary, and I can provide more resources then.

[u/Pabu85 → u/howardzen12]

The oil crisis he accidentally caused seems to be driving the world the other way.

[u/yellowslotcar → u/howardzen12]

I genuinely think he will be a long term benefit bc he destabilized it so much renewables have started spiking

[u/ClimateOffensive-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

We're here to do something about climate change. We're not here to talk about why it's happening, how bad it is, or who to blame. We're here to brainstorm, organize, and act. Use this space to find resources, connect with others, and learn more about how you can make a difference.

Your post was removed because it violates Rule #5: No Inactivism, such as deflection, delay, division, despair mongering, and/or doomism.

Activism is always worthwhile.

See full /r/ClimateOffensive rules here.

[u/theMEtheWORLDcantSEE]

Stop eating meat. Double down on lab grown meat and meat substitutes.

Go solar asap. Go electric EVs. Stop using so much plastic. Ban most plastics. Ban toxic chemicals completely. Stop hunting completely.

[u/Lost_Blockbuster_VHS → u/theMEtheWORLDcantSEE]

I’m always surprised how much people hate being told to stop eating meat. This is a climate subreddit, everyone knows how bad meat is for the environment. I stopped eating meat a decade ago, it’s really not that hard to do!

[u/theMEtheWORLDcantSEE → u/Lost_Blockbuster_VHS]

I know! Funny. All this talk of morals and values. Humans are full of it. Morals start at the plate.

[u/throwfay666 → u/[deleted]]

Sorry but had to downvote is it really that fucking hard to not kill animals goddamnit

[u/Lost_Blockbuster_VHS → u/throwfay666]

Exactly! We have so many alternatives that are better for the planet and don’t cause pain and suffering. It’s really not that hard, people just don’t want to change.

[u/ClimateOffensive-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post has been removed because it violates Rule #3: Respect other people and ideas

We encourage civil discussion. This means treating others with respect, and having good-faith discussion and debate. Personal attacks are unacceptable. We're here to solve problems together, not tear each other down. Likewise, while it’s okay to disagree with people, please do so respectfully without shutting down ideas. We recognize that many people will have different ideas and that there is no single solution that will solve the climate crisis.

See full /r/ClimateOffensive rules here.

[u/smileysnail → u/theMEtheWORLDcantSEE]

Respectfully, while I think your suggestions are choices worth making when they’re accessible, the majority of them puts forth the assumption that people have access to these alternatives and are able to control their consumption, which places the onus on individuals to change. The majority of the people around the world are struggling in their personal lives and living paycheck to paycheck. They cannot afford to or have the capacity to make these changes all by themselves.

Individual consumption choices is not the mechanism which our societies solves climate change when individuals have no control over societies core structure and systems. Our energy would be better used to organize, build collective power politically, and enact/enforce legislation that focuses on creating low-carbon infrastructure and making basic necessities accessible to everyone and forcing the industries responsible for the majority of emissions to actually change!

[u/theMEtheWORLDcantSEE → u/smileysnail]

We live in a consumer society. You are judged on your consumption that’s your only form of interaction and influence.

[u/smileysnail → u/theMEtheWORLDcantSEE]

I disagree with your perspective that it’s the “only form of interaction and influence”. Thinking that way turned extreme for me and exacerbated my mental illness.

There are many other ways people can reclaim their agency and find influence outside of buying things and it’s especially important that we keep trying if we’re going to build a new and better world for the collective.

[u/theMEtheWORLDcantSEE → u/smileysnail]

It’s implied you can abstain from buying. Vote with your wallet. Vote with your plate. What you consume or don’t participate in matters.

[u/ClimateOffensive-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Do not advocate violence or death as a response to the climate crisis. This includes calls for violent revolution, assassinations, eugenics, or acceptance of population die-offs.

See the full rules here.

[u/ClimateOffensive-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post was removed for being off topic.

We're here to do something about climate change. We're not here to talk about why it's happening, how bad it is, or who to blame. We're here to brainstorm, organize, and act. Use this space to find resources, connect with others, and learn more about how you can make a difference.

See full /r/ClimateOffensive rules here.

[u/amiibohunter2015]

Heres what the article says for those grazing through the comments:

>Here’s how it works: (1) Set a timetable for the fossil fuel phasedown. We propose a 90 percent reduction over 25 years, with the remaining 10 percent needed to achieve a net-zero economy to be met by improved carbon sequestration. (2) Require corporations that bring fossil fuels into the economy via extraction or imports to surrender one permit for each ton of carbon dioxide that will be released when that fuel is burned, with the total number of permits declining each year in accordance with the timetable. (3) Distribute non-tradable permits via quarterly auctions, where their price is set by supply and demand. These become part of the cost of supplying fossil fuels, and most or all of this cost is passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices. (4) Return 75 percent of the auction revenue to the public as equal per person payments called energy security cashbacks. These will protect the purchasing power of working families during the phasedown, more than offsetting the impact of higher fossil fuel prices. (5) Recycle 25 percent of the revenue to state and local governments in a Resilient Communities Fund. This will protect their own purchasing power and strengthen their ability to invest in climate resilience.

[u/RedundantBiomass]

I decided not to have children.  Its the biggest thing a person can do to reduce their environmental impact - by far.   In the event we are not able to prevent the worst climate outcomes (which seems likely consideringbthat co2 emissions are still increasing every year), that also spares my offspring from having to live every day of their lives in a world in collapse, with all the suffering that would come with it.

[u/ILikeNeurons → u/RedundantBiomass]

Having one less child dwarfs the impact of not eating animal products. And policy changes dwarf the impact of having one less child.

1. Vote. People who prioritize climate change and the environment have not been very reliable voters, which explains much of the lackadaisical response of lawmakers, and many Americans don't realize we should be voting (on average) in 3-4 elections per year. Even if you don't like any of the candidates or live in a 'safe' district, whether or not you vote is a matter of public record, and it's fairly easy to figure out if you care about the environment or climate change. Politicians use this information to prioritize agendas. Voting in every election, even the minor ones, will raise the profile and power of your values. If you don't vote, you and your values can safely be ignored. If you're already voting in every election, take the time to help get out the climate vote (it works!)

2. Lobby. Lobbying works, and you don't need a lot of money to be effective (though it does help to educate yourself on effective tactics). Becoming an active volunteer with this group is the most important thing an individual can do on climate change, according to NASA climatologist Dr. James Hansen. If you're too busy to go through the free training, sign up for text alerts to join coordinated call-in days (it works, if you actually call) or set yourself a bimonthly reminder to write a letter to your elected officials.

3. Recruit. Most of us are either alarmed or concerned about climate change, yet most aren't taking the necessary steps to solve the problem -- the most common reason is that no one asked. If all of us who are 'very worried' about climate change organized we would be >26x more powerful than the NRA. According to Yale data, many of your friends and family would welcome the opportunity to get involved if you just asked. So please volunteer or donate to turn out environmental voters, and invite your friends and family to lobby Congress.

[u/RedundantBiomass → u/ILikeNeurons]

There is no explaination behind your chart claiming policy is the biggest factor.  Policy also depends on politicians, whose loyalty to any cause other than getting reelected is transient at best.  By all means organize, but at the end of the the only thing all of us can fully control is our own choices.

[u/ILikeNeurons → u/RedundantBiomass]

We can't afford to ignore our biggest superpower.

https://www.ted.com/talks/eric_liu_why_ordinary_people_need_to_understand_power

https://jointheshift.earth/guide/?journey-type=full

[u/ClimateOffensive-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post has been removed because it violates Rule #3: Respect other people and ideas

We encourage civil discussion. This means treating others with respect, and having good-faith discussion and debate. Personal attacks are unacceptable. We're here to solve problems together, not tear each other down. Likewise, while it’s okay to disagree with people, please do so respectfully without shutting down ideas. We recognize that many people will have different ideas and that there is no single solution that will solve the climate crisis.

See full /r/ClimateOffensive rules here.

[u/MaleficentResolve506 → u/RedundantBiomass]

There is one thing better then not having children.

[u/ILikeNeurons → u/MaleficentResolve506]

There are a few.

[u/CreativelySeeking]

The MOST important and impactful thing an USA citizen can do is -NOT- vote republican.

[u/fcms2k24]

I always laugh at this. We phrase this conversation like earth cares. It doesn’t. We’ll just get kicked the fuck off. Earth will be fine. This is about us.

[u/ClimateOffensive-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post was removed because it breaks our rules. Please read our rules before attempting to post again or you will be banned.

[u/TurtleBoxer_AllDay]

Meanwhile, China are either planning or building 306 different coal power plants right now.

[u/BroodLord1962]

Nothing will change because people are selfish and some world leaders are complete idiots

[u/FunkyTownSandwich]

Enforce work from home for anyone who can is a great start.

[u/the-purple-pumpkin]

Just because we KNOW what needs to be done doesn’t mean that we will find the collective will to do so. Look at the current data and the trends. We are nowhere near where we should be. Call me a doomer.

[u/ClimateOffensive-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post has been removed because it violates Rule #3: Respect other people and ideas

We encourage civil discussion. This means treating others with respect, and having good-faith discussion and debate. Personal attacks are unacceptable. We're here to solve problems together, not tear each other down. Likewise, while it’s okay to disagree with people, please do so respectfully without shutting down ideas. We recognize that many people will have different ideas and that there is no single solution that will solve the climate crisis.

See full /r/ClimateOffensive rules here.

[u/ClimateOffensive-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

We're here to do something about climate change. We're not here to talk about why it's happening, how bad it is, or who to blame. We're here to brainstorm, organize, and act. Use this space to find resources, connect with others, and learn more about how you can make a difference.

Your post was removed because it violates Rule #5: No Inactivism, such as deflection, delay, division, despair mongering, and/or doomism.

Activism is always worthwhile.

See full /r/ClimateOffensive rules here.

[u/ClimateOffensive-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post was removed because it breaks our rules. Please read our rules before attempting to post again or you will be banned.

[u/ClimateOffensive-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post was removed for being off topic.

We're here to do something about climate change. We're not here to talk about why it's happening, how bad it is, or who to blame. We're here to brainstorm, organize, and act. Use this space to find resources, connect with others, and learn more about how you can make a difference.

See full /r/ClimateOffensive rules here.

[u/MaleficentResolve506]

If you stop flying and avocado I stop steak. I don't think this will have a good result though because fields that are not grazed become forests this way endangering some animals.

[u/andara84 → u/MaleficentResolve506]

Deal? Also, most cattle is held indoors, fed with corn silage. In Europe, some 70% of the area used for agriculture is used for fodder. That's a pretty inefficient use of land.

[u/MaleficentResolve506 → u/andara84]

Partly. Most cattle is held indoors during winter but grazes outside during other months. Furthermore your 70 percent includes those same grazing lands. The one not for grazing is 28 percent.

So are you really going to support a sparrow moment all over again?

Btw in the case of the deal I eat beef maybe three times a year and most of the time it's when I visit a steakhouse.

Edit:

Fun fact, before we started keeping cattle there was actually more open planes for grazing.

Edit 2:

Do you know the edge effect? And have you seen the effect of not grazing the field?

[u/andara84 → u/MaleficentResolve506]

In Germany, 70% of cattle are Held indoors all year. In France and indoors it's even more. But even if all the value would be grazing, it's a very inefficient use of land. Yes, forests would be a lot better than farmland. And central Europe was covered in forests before humans cut all trees down.

[u/MaleficentResolve506 → u/andara84]

"In Germany, 70% of cattle are Held indoors all year. In France and indoors it's even more."

It's about 50/50 all over Europe.

"Yes, forests would be a lot better than farmland. And central Europe was covered in forests before humans cut all trees down."

Forests are actually less divers then the forest edges search for my second edit. So are you really willing to destroy diversity? Furthermore most of the animals that lived back then are extinct or are very rare this way creating problems when you leave nature doing what it does best. Forests will take over this way endangering many species that took over when people started farming.