The climate action zones - tech vs behavior
The climate action zones - tech vs behavior
Some things are easier to change than others - and the really hard things often don't require money, but a change in people!
Edit: Sorry for the shitty OP, I should have known better than to post in a hurry.
It reads as if the population is primarily responsible for combating the climate crisis, while industry and government are off the hook because money has little effect.
What I actually meant to express was that technological adjustments that only cost money are easier to implement than changes to people's habits. Perhaps this is a naive idea because it assumes that there is the political will to make these investments and that the industry is forced to cooperate accordingly. Addressing the climate crisis requires many changes, and economic profitability must be secondary. But achieving this is perhaps one of the most difficult adjustments society requires.
You're viewing a single thread.
I disagree that the really hard things don't cost money.
Eating less meat does, at the surface, cost the consumer less money. If I go in to the supermarket, it's cheaper to buy a bunch of chicken wings than it is to buy some plant based protein (not to mention my kids will actually eat the chicken). And yes, I know, "ThErE aRe pLeNTy oF cHeAPeR WaYs to EaT a nOn-MEaT DiEt.". Thank you, Mr Vegan, we're talking about converting the masses here. Government's can change that by changing subsidy weights, but then it's not really an individual-led change at that level.
Same for decarbonisation of heating - if I want to install a heat pump and insulate my home better, that costs money!
As for flying yes, that's more about regulating air travel to make it cost more and stopping the practice of airlines having to fly empty flights to retain their use of that flight plan. Again, not really an individual-driven change. Especially because the impact of flying disproportionately leans towards the more wealthy and business.
Same for decarbonisation of heating - if I want to install a heat pump and insulate my home better, that costs money!
And older multi-story apartment buildings are often practically impossible to switch to heat pumps. These older buildings make up a vast majority of european city dwellings. All you can realistically do is update insulation and the central heating system to be more efficient, but decarbonizing the latter—I don't even know if there are heat pump based solutions that can heat water to 50...60°C needed if it gets to -20°C and colder. And if there is, installing it would be a nightmare.
Individual heat pumps for each apartment? Where to put the 2 to 4 external heat exchangers per apartment that is needed? If they're on the walls 30 meters from ground how do you have access to them for deicing if they clog up with snow and ice? If they're on rooftops you need mighty long piping to lower floors.
Heat pumps are awesome, but for apartment buildings you have to plan them in from the beginning.
I agree, "the really hard things often don’t require money, but a change in people!" despite what I'm sure are OP's best intentions, is juts more of the same corporate shifting of responsibility away from themselves and on to the individuals they have trapped. Unless the change they mean is becoming an active anti-capitalist and plotting the demise of the rich, which I somehow doubt.
As long as profit is the priority of society, those who make it off of the backs (and eventual destruction) of the rest of us aren't going to stop, and as long as they keep going, anything we do in terms of personal eating habits/recycling/travel and so on is an irrelevant drop in the ocean. The only way to have any real impact is remove them and destroy their system.
Sorry about that, that was really badly worded by me. I meant to express that behavorial change is a hard challenge, while (some) technological issues can 'simply' be solved by throwing money at it.
I am fully convinced that we need a radically different economic system that steers away from profit as ultimate goal.
Many poor people already have a mostly plant-based diet because it's cheaper. All you really need is rice, beans, and veggies
And therefore all those poor people are not the people you're trying to convert to a plant-based diet.
No, my point was that the amount of people to convince is low
I'm not sure that's true.
This article implies an awful lot of people are meat eaters, globally.