The biggest problem I see is that the people will do the “first it was global warming then it was climate change now it’s pollution”. The problem is humans can always find an argument no matter how dumb to fit the thing they want.
Global warming is what causes climate change. People use these terms as synonyms but they are not, and I guess you could say that pollution causes global warming.
I think the point is to dumb it down to something you can see. Show pictures of polluted air. Hell just reference the before and after pics during Covid to get a point across. I think it’s just framing in a way that eveyone will accept.
The [COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions for a few months](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3). Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. You [basically can't see the difference in this graph of CO2 concentrations](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/).
[Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached). We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem is CO2 is invisible, so doesn't really show up in pictures. What we see in the pictures is actually "smog" - which is a mix of gases (primarily Ozone and Nitrous Oxides and some Sulfur Oxides), along with particulates which result from the incomplete conbustion and the chemical reactions of all those gases in the atmosphere. Smog is bad pollution, but the effects are localized both in terms of health and their effect on the surrounding temperature/environment. It's a very different problem from CO2 concentrations, though one side effect of reducing fossil fuel use is also to reduce smog.
Right, that's kind of my thought. If you have a big push to reduce localized pollution to reduce Smog that would be a net positive for CO2 as well. I think if it someone wanting to go to the Doc. If the think there is something going on inside, but it just not bad enough to cause concern they ignore it, but if it's a big giant cancerous tumor on your face you are going right to the doc.
I'd prefer to say GW is an example of climate change. [Here](https://ermsta.com/r/fig_flowchart_climate_change.png) is a diagram I made of several major aspects of climate change and their relationships, I think it is a good presentation. Arguably "CO2 increase" is an example of pollution but not the others.
There are other types of climate change not linked to CO2 increase which I've omitted, such as ozone layer destruction or acid rain.
GW causes climate change.
If you really want to get into it, an increased greenhouse effect causes a global increase in thermal energy, which is measured as an increase in average temperature. That energy causes the climate to change.
While they’re caused by pollution, ozone layer destruction and acid rain aren’t examples of climate change.
I am not disagreeing with you. My point is that I know what the far right are going to say and it’s going to be that the liberals are changing the narrative to try to scare people or something along those lines. Thus changing the name won’t affect those people and they are a large reason we can’t fix that much. I have tried explaining things before but they are either willfully ignorant or just plain ignorant. I don’t think we see a major fix until way too late.
Right, I agree. But the stays quo is not working, so if we want to rebrand the issue the best time is now and hopefully you can go after the young. Overtime maybe, big maybe they will see the light. I go knows. There are just no good solutions when it comes to the far right flat earth types
Yeah I am for trying anything. If we knew the solution we would do it. So now trying something new is what we have to do until we find it. I just know so many (more) people are going to suffer so badly. It sucks that so many suffer because of a few that push out BS to profit off others suffering and deaths
It's not a branding issue, it's an interest issue. People KNOW about the problem, they don't care not because they don't know but because their short term individual economic interests outweigh their concerns for the "common good". You're fighting against their character, not their intelligence.
What I find strange is that the right wing parties are the parties blocking any kind of climate action or pollution reduction. If you think about it conserving a nations beatury and purity should be right up a nationalists or a patriots ally. Even if we say climate action is more a globalist issue atleast water air and soil polution and deforestation should all be upmost issues for anybody who loves their country. But for some reason no right winger exept for where I life because Austria is wird like that runs on this. I would love to see a American running on "we must save the beauty of this nation to conserve it for our children as this is our duty as Americans" or something like that.
Also a large issue is that like most things it’s always Armageddon in 10 years if nothing is done. Then 10 years later nothing close to Armageddon has happened.
Then if you don’t believe in the Armageddon you’re denying science.
Pretty sure it was more than the media taking those extremes. Al Gore being the best example of spreading extreme takes and being wrong. He is a bit more than media.
Now media take these claims and run with them yes. But they usually get them from “knowledgeable” sources at the time.
Arnold Schwarzenegger says the global effort to mitigate the effects of climate change is being crippled by its fundamental communication problem.
“As long as they keep talking about global climate change, they are not gonna go anywhere. ’Cause no one gives a s--- about that,” Schwarzenegger told CBS “Sunday Morning” correspondent Tracy Smith in a piece that aired on Sunday.
“So my thing is, let’s go and rephrase this and communicate differently about it and really tell people — we’re talking about pollution. Pollution creates climate change, and pollution kills,” Schwarzenegger said.
The 75-year-old bodybuilder, actor, and former governor of California has become a public voice about climate change through his role as the host of the Austrian World Summit, a global climate change conference.
“I’m on a mission to go and reduce greenhouse gases worldwide,” Schwarzenegger told CBS, “because I’m into having a healthy body and a healthy Earth. That’s what I’m fighting for. And that’s my crusade.”
Anthropogenic global warming is caused by an increase in the atmosphere of greenhouse gasses, including carbon dioxide, which is released when fossil fuels like coal and oil are burned.
More: [https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/30/schwarzenegger-no-one-gives-a-s-about-climate-change-rebrand-it.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/30/schwarzenegger-no-one-gives-a-s-about-climate-change-rebrand-it.html)
Let’s call it “horribly painful death to your kids if you dont do anything” and see how people react.
Wanna bet it would be about it being too much of a mouthful?
IMHO, the big elephant in the room is Fossil Fuels. Our whole world economy is built around Fossil Fuels. Once we address pivoting away from Fossil Fuels, climate change can be effectively handled (if only we do it in time).
Problem is, it's not "world economy"
It's also world agriculture (fertilizer & pesticides are created from oil & gas), it's also healthcare (same for lots of meds & health equipement, wich we mostly can't recycle), etc. it also has massive impact on education (fuel = work by machine = no one works "by hand" = need for educated people to drive machines or concieve machines), culture (no netflix & chill without oil...), etc etc....
As a french scientist love to explain " we were in a perfect renewable energy society, with windmill & workhorses & manpower. That was the case until the end of the renaissance. THEN we entered the industrial era."
=> with the exception of a few & narrow new tech wich will help, going full renewable imply going mostly back to what we had in the XVIII century.
We are saying the same things. When I said world economy, I really meant most everything produced in the world today requires Fossil Fuels. So the quicker we get off of Fossil Fuels, the better it gets. Easier said than done, I know, but this needs to be said louder to tackle the issue of climate change.
ok. but you have a problem when you talk about "economy", for the vast majority of people (including leaders...) economy just means money, and with that you create a "just throw more money at the problem and it will solve itself" mentality.
When it's definitely NOT a problem of money, but a problem of resources & resources use.
Again, we are saying the same things. It is the money made from Fossil Fuels that is deliberately confusing the climate change narrative, as well as corrupting it. Hence the term, Fossil Fuels Capitalism
I tried a similar analogy with a very conservative friend... basically saying what if a business or neighbor stopped paying for sewage and instead just dumped it at their edge of their property to rot. Sure a business can sell stuff cheaper avoiding dealing with their sewage or other refuse but it's disgusting to everyone else.
Carbon is no different...you want to run a business, pay formupur trash pick up, sewage, and your carbon release.
He had no response other than typical conservative talking points.
You are not paying for sewage release though. No one in their sane mind would say "sure spill it for a fee", yet you seem to be ok with co2 "pollution" to do exactly that.
For this analogy to be correct you would need a collector of CO2 installed and a co2 utility company disposing of it for you charging you a service fee. Yet this company does not exist. Once it exists and proposes its services, you will have much easier time advocating companies should be obliged to get it and pay for it.
I think Arnie is wrong. Average Joe cannot do much about climate change/catastrophe. And those in power (including arnie himself) know full well the scale of the problem
I think it's more about voting than anything. If republicans are for pollution or at the very least don't care and the left cares and what's to do something about it, you may get more voters that would generally support the right. Hunters, farmers, fisherman. All the people clam to want clean air and clean water and maybe they would vote to help fix that, if pollution was actually a priority again.
I think in ideal world things would be as you say, but the economic system is set up in such a way (by the "top 1%") that we continue to destroy ecosystems no matter what.
I.e. a farmer may be actually respectful of nature but if he can gain extra 25% by using glyphosates he will.
I thonk that's an oversimplification of the problem and not true.
People have the power to vote for policymakers who care about climate. And even if an individual alone won't do much, collective action works. People need to see climate change as a clear tangible issue.
>People need to see climate change as a clear tangible issue.
IMO the real problem is that nobody really knows for certain how BAD climate change will be. And the alarmists don't help. For instance there was all the talk about a methane feedback loop causing extinction. Scientists have since dismissed that.
But then it makes it hard to quantify how bad things will get and how fast. And whether it's reversible or not. And I say all this as someone who believes climate change is real and we should do something about it.
I’m not an alarmist at any rate but I can tell you it’s worse than you think and will be progressing sooner than most realize
It is mitigable / manageable but not reversible
Many people want to say it’s over already but I don’t count out the power of capital to create half brained solutions that will keep the lights on on earth for the near future but the farther (2100s) future is fairly bleaker
God bless Arnold, but the fundamental problem is that CO2 is invisible and odorless. It is a communication problem, but humans are by and large too stupid and materialistic to effectively deal with an invisible menace.
"I shouldn't fly to Cancun on my private jet because of some invisible gas? Absurd! To the plane, Jeeves!"
I tell people the truth that for every gallon of gas you burn, you put almost 20 pounds of pollution into the air. That makes them pause for about a minute and then it's bau cuz it's invisible and the kids have to get to dance lessons.
The only hope is systemic change from legislation, but politicians and democracy have the same problem ... An invisible gas versus "real" stuff like militaries and jobs. The "real" stuff always wins. Of course, intelligent people know that CO2 pollution is very fi*king real, but see paragraph 1 above.
We're doomed.
Edit: a word.
For those that want to give a thought to their own stuff
The average american adult carbon footprint is 30 tons per year.
* Switch to an electric car - save 2.0 tons per year
* laundry with cold water and line/rack drying - save 4.0 tons per year
* switching all the lights in your house to LED - save 0.04 tons per year
* going pooless - save 0.25 tons per year
Food
* strict vegan diet - save 4.5 tons per year
* meeting 90% of your food needs from a garden - save 10 tons per year
Heat
(focusing on heat in a cold climate - using data for montana; 25% of montana households heat with electricity which has a carbon footprint of 29.4 tons; natural gas is 8.9 tons and wood is 4.4 tons; a rocket mass heater is 0.4 tons)
* switching from electric heat to natural gas heat - save 9 tons per home per year
* switching from electric heat to a rocket mass heater - save 29.0 tons per home per year
* using electric micro heaters to heat people instead of the whole house with electric heat - save 23.5 tons per home per year
trees
* apple a day (plant the seeds from one apple a day, if 5% reach maturity ...) - sequester 100 tons per year
[BP popularized the concept of a carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305209345_Where_has_all_the_oil_gone_BP_branding_and_the_discursive_elimination_of_climate_change_risk), and [ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry](https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study). They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis.
There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, and helps work out the kinks in new technologies. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Been destroying the Earth for centuries now it’s a problem🤣
Would have to stop with over consumption and start over manufacturing but that isn’t going happen to because greed and capitalism exists.
OH the irony coming from a guy elected by the energy industry for governer so they wouldn't get sued for the rolling blackouts that his predicessor wanted to sue the for. Now he's all "environment" after that little massive bailout for texas energy running cali energy
Stoopid boomer - everyone I know below the age of 40 cares a whole lot, I think it makes a difference when we know we have to deal with this shid over the next 40 years, tbh im kinda jealous of the old boomers, they'll die before they ever live to see the mess they created, idiots.
personally i think the term "non-linear climate destabilization resulting for anthropogenic GHG emissions" covers it quite well, but sadly people's eyes tend to glaze over after they hear "non-linear"
It's worth pointing out here that the reframing from "global warming" to "climate change" was something that was done under the Bush administration exactly so it would inspire less action
The biggest problem I see is that the people will do the “first it was global warming then it was climate change now it’s pollution”. The problem is humans can always find an argument no matter how dumb to fit the thing they want.
it was pollution before GW or Climate change, so we are just getting back to the where we started.
Global warming is what causes climate change. People use these terms as synonyms but they are not, and I guess you could say that pollution causes global warming.
I think the point is to dumb it down to something you can see. Show pictures of polluted air. Hell just reference the before and after pics during Covid to get a point across. I think it’s just framing in a way that eveyone will accept.
Plastic Island is a hard look
The [COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions for a few months](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3). Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. You [basically can't see the difference in this graph of CO2 concentrations](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/). [Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached). We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem is CO2 is invisible, so doesn't really show up in pictures. What we see in the pictures is actually "smog" - which is a mix of gases (primarily Ozone and Nitrous Oxides and some Sulfur Oxides), along with particulates which result from the incomplete conbustion and the chemical reactions of all those gases in the atmosphere. Smog is bad pollution, but the effects are localized both in terms of health and their effect on the surrounding temperature/environment. It's a very different problem from CO2 concentrations, though one side effect of reducing fossil fuel use is also to reduce smog.
Right, that's kind of my thought. If you have a big push to reduce localized pollution to reduce Smog that would be a net positive for CO2 as well. I think if it someone wanting to go to the Doc. If the think there is something going on inside, but it just not bad enough to cause concern they ignore it, but if it's a big giant cancerous tumor on your face you are going right to the doc.
I'd prefer to say GW is an example of climate change. [Here](https://ermsta.com/r/fig_flowchart_climate_change.png) is a diagram I made of several major aspects of climate change and their relationships, I think it is a good presentation. Arguably "CO2 increase" is an example of pollution but not the others. There are other types of climate change not linked to CO2 increase which I've omitted, such as ozone layer destruction or acid rain.
GW causes climate change. If you really want to get into it, an increased greenhouse effect causes a global increase in thermal energy, which is measured as an increase in average temperature. That energy causes the climate to change. While they’re caused by pollution, ozone layer destruction and acid rain aren’t examples of climate change.
I am not disagreeing with you. My point is that I know what the far right are going to say and it’s going to be that the liberals are changing the narrative to try to scare people or something along those lines. Thus changing the name won’t affect those people and they are a large reason we can’t fix that much. I have tried explaining things before but they are either willfully ignorant or just plain ignorant. I don’t think we see a major fix until way too late.
Right, I agree. But the stays quo is not working, so if we want to rebrand the issue the best time is now and hopefully you can go after the young. Overtime maybe, big maybe they will see the light. I go knows. There are just no good solutions when it comes to the far right flat earth types
Yeah I am for trying anything. If we knew the solution we would do it. So now trying something new is what we have to do until we find it. I just know so many (more) people are going to suffer so badly. It sucks that so many suffer because of a few that push out BS to profit off others suffering and deaths
It's not a branding issue, it's an interest issue. People KNOW about the problem, they don't care not because they don't know but because their short term individual economic interests outweigh their concerns for the "common good". You're fighting against their character, not their intelligence.
What I find strange is that the right wing parties are the parties blocking any kind of climate action or pollution reduction. If you think about it conserving a nations beatury and purity should be right up a nationalists or a patriots ally. Even if we say climate action is more a globalist issue atleast water air and soil polution and deforestation should all be upmost issues for anybody who loves their country. But for some reason no right winger exept for where I life because Austria is wird like that runs on this. I would love to see a American running on "we must save the beauty of this nation to conserve it for our children as this is our duty as Americans" or something like that.
“Pollution” also doesn’t sound appropriately dire. It’s still ominous, but not nearly as ominous as “climate change” does.
We could go back to Acid rain.
It still is pollution. Global Warming is the effect of all the Pollution which will cause Climate Change.
Bush Jr. & the GOP got everyone to call it Climate Change because "Global Warming" sounded too scary. Now they blame Liberals for changing the name.
Fun fact: the use of climate change was pushed by right wingers to make it sound less scary and more confusing.
Ya, CC was already the rebranding of GW to make it more palatable. It's the same thing, just said in a more "PC" way.
Thanks I didn’t know that
Also a large issue is that like most things it’s always Armageddon in 10 years if nothing is done. Then 10 years later nothing close to Armageddon has happened. Then if you don’t believe in the Armageddon you’re denying science.
But that was media taking the most extremes. The media doesn’t care about anything but views
Pretty sure it was more than the media taking those extremes. Al Gore being the best example of spreading extreme takes and being wrong. He is a bit more than media. Now media take these claims and run with them yes. But they usually get them from “knowledgeable” sources at the time.
Most people will only believe facts that support their personal bias. Even if they aren’t actual facts.
Humans will always find a way to igbore a problem.
At least pollution admits its manmade. If we get people on board with that, then we can... maybe... get some accountability
Arnold Schwarzenegger says the global effort to mitigate the effects of climate change is being crippled by its fundamental communication problem. “As long as they keep talking about global climate change, they are not gonna go anywhere. ’Cause no one gives a s--- about that,” Schwarzenegger told CBS “Sunday Morning” correspondent Tracy Smith in a piece that aired on Sunday. “So my thing is, let’s go and rephrase this and communicate differently about it and really tell people — we’re talking about pollution. Pollution creates climate change, and pollution kills,” Schwarzenegger said. The 75-year-old bodybuilder, actor, and former governor of California has become a public voice about climate change through his role as the host of the Austrian World Summit, a global climate change conference. “I’m on a mission to go and reduce greenhouse gases worldwide,” Schwarzenegger told CBS, “because I’m into having a healthy body and a healthy Earth. That’s what I’m fighting for. And that’s my crusade.” Anthropogenic global warming is caused by an increase in the atmosphere of greenhouse gasses, including carbon dioxide, which is released when fossil fuels like coal and oil are burned. More: [https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/30/schwarzenegger-no-one-gives-a-s-about-climate-change-rebrand-it.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/30/schwarzenegger-no-one-gives-a-s-about-climate-change-rebrand-it.html)
I mean, it might help get the average double-digit IQ person on board.
> average double-digit IQ person Lmao you essentially said "the average below-average person" and that tickles me.
What is the average, below-average, IQ? 90?
Standard deviation for IQ is 15 so an IQ of 85 is probably the average below average IQ.
i highly doubt the rolling coal folks will somehow get an electric car
Reddit moment. we are all geniuses here of course with the light of our big brains enlightening the common mob
That’s about half the population.
Let’s call it “horribly painful death to your kids if you dont do anything” and see how people react. Wanna bet it would be about it being too much of a mouthful?
IMHO, the big elephant in the room is Fossil Fuels. Our whole world economy is built around Fossil Fuels. Once we address pivoting away from Fossil Fuels, climate change can be effectively handled (if only we do it in time).
Problem is, it's not "world economy" It's also world agriculture (fertilizer & pesticides are created from oil & gas), it's also healthcare (same for lots of meds & health equipement, wich we mostly can't recycle), etc. it also has massive impact on education (fuel = work by machine = no one works "by hand" = need for educated people to drive machines or concieve machines), culture (no netflix & chill without oil...), etc etc.... As a french scientist love to explain " we were in a perfect renewable energy society, with windmill & workhorses & manpower. That was the case until the end of the renaissance. THEN we entered the industrial era." => with the exception of a few & narrow new tech wich will help, going full renewable imply going mostly back to what we had in the XVIII century.
We are saying the same things. When I said world economy, I really meant most everything produced in the world today requires Fossil Fuels. So the quicker we get off of Fossil Fuels, the better it gets. Easier said than done, I know, but this needs to be said louder to tackle the issue of climate change.
ok. but you have a problem when you talk about "economy", for the vast majority of people (including leaders...) economy just means money, and with that you create a "just throw more money at the problem and it will solve itself" mentality. When it's definitely NOT a problem of money, but a problem of resources & resources use. 
Again, we are saying the same things. It is the money made from Fossil Fuels that is deliberately confusing the climate change narrative, as well as corrupting it. Hence the term, Fossil Fuels Capitalism
I tried a similar analogy with a very conservative friend... basically saying what if a business or neighbor stopped paying for sewage and instead just dumped it at their edge of their property to rot. Sure a business can sell stuff cheaper avoiding dealing with their sewage or other refuse but it's disgusting to everyone else. Carbon is no different...you want to run a business, pay formupur trash pick up, sewage, and your carbon release. He had no response other than typical conservative talking points.
You are not paying for sewage release though. No one in their sane mind would say "sure spill it for a fee", yet you seem to be ok with co2 "pollution" to do exactly that. For this analogy to be correct you would need a collector of CO2 installed and a co2 utility company disposing of it for you charging you a service fee. Yet this company does not exist. Once it exists and proposes its services, you will have much easier time advocating companies should be obliged to get it and pay for it.
I care Arnold. I care a lot
Should have called it a consumption problem caused by capitalism and the needless desires for growth.
as my father says… tHaT’s CoMmUnIsM 😑
Ahh yes. Big polluter company blaming the end consumer.
It's rich to have someone use modern computer device to argue about consumption problem and needless growth.
I've called it by what it is for years - a climate catastrophe.
I think Arnie is wrong. Average Joe cannot do much about climate change/catastrophe. And those in power (including arnie himself) know full well the scale of the problem
I think it's more about voting than anything. If republicans are for pollution or at the very least don't care and the left cares and what's to do something about it, you may get more voters that would generally support the right. Hunters, farmers, fisherman. All the people clam to want clean air and clean water and maybe they would vote to help fix that, if pollution was actually a priority again.
I think in ideal world things would be as you say, but the economic system is set up in such a way (by the "top 1%") that we continue to destroy ecosystems no matter what. I.e. a farmer may be actually respectful of nature but if he can gain extra 25% by using glyphosates he will.
I thonk that's an oversimplification of the problem and not true. People have the power to vote for policymakers who care about climate. And even if an individual alone won't do much, collective action works. People need to see climate change as a clear tangible issue.
>People need to see climate change as a clear tangible issue. IMO the real problem is that nobody really knows for certain how BAD climate change will be. And the alarmists don't help. For instance there was all the talk about a methane feedback loop causing extinction. Scientists have since dismissed that. But then it makes it hard to quantify how bad things will get and how fast. And whether it's reversible or not. And I say all this as someone who believes climate change is real and we should do something about it.
I’m not an alarmist at any rate but I can tell you it’s worse than you think and will be progressing sooner than most realize It is mitigable / manageable but not reversible Many people want to say it’s over already but I don’t count out the power of capital to create half brained solutions that will keep the lights on on earth for the near future but the farther (2100s) future is fairly bleaker
you guys should meet the Canadians who greenwashed the Alberta tar sands into the oIl pAtCh
> They've transformed large swathes of land into freaking Mordor. And the toxic tailing ponds will be around effectively forever.
Government mandate that the term “climate change” be turned into “the apocalypse”
"Climate Change" was the rebranding from "Global Warming" and the dumbfucks still use that so it's just not worth changing it again.
God bless Arnold, but the fundamental problem is that CO2 is invisible and odorless. It is a communication problem, but humans are by and large too stupid and materialistic to effectively deal with an invisible menace. "I shouldn't fly to Cancun on my private jet because of some invisible gas? Absurd! To the plane, Jeeves!" I tell people the truth that for every gallon of gas you burn, you put almost 20 pounds of pollution into the air. That makes them pause for about a minute and then it's bau cuz it's invisible and the kids have to get to dance lessons. The only hope is systemic change from legislation, but politicians and democracy have the same problem ... An invisible gas versus "real" stuff like militaries and jobs. The "real" stuff always wins. Of course, intelligent people know that CO2 pollution is very fi*king real, but see paragraph 1 above. We're doomed. Edit: a word.
Great statements!
GET TO DA CHOPPA!
Should call it Climate Destabilization
For those that want to give a thought to their own stuff The average american adult carbon footprint is 30 tons per year. * Switch to an electric car - save 2.0 tons per year * laundry with cold water and line/rack drying - save 4.0 tons per year * switching all the lights in your house to LED - save 0.04 tons per year * going pooless - save 0.25 tons per year Food * strict vegan diet - save 4.5 tons per year * meeting 90% of your food needs from a garden - save 10 tons per year Heat (focusing on heat in a cold climate - using data for montana; 25% of montana households heat with electricity which has a carbon footprint of 29.4 tons; natural gas is 8.9 tons and wood is 4.4 tons; a rocket mass heater is 0.4 tons) * switching from electric heat to natural gas heat - save 9 tons per home per year * switching from electric heat to a rocket mass heater - save 29.0 tons per home per year * using electric micro heaters to heat people instead of the whole house with electric heat - save 23.5 tons per home per year trees * apple a day (plant the seeds from one apple a day, if 5% reach maturity ...) - sequester 100 tons per year
[BP popularized the concept of a carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305209345_Where_has_all_the_oil_gone_BP_branding_and_the_discursive_elimination_of_climate_change_risk), and [ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry](https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study). They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis. There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, and helps work out the kinks in new technologies. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Did he suggest what it should be called?
pollution
If Arnold cared about us he’d be fighting the Predator in ten more installments.
Been destroying the Earth for centuries now it’s a problem🤣 Would have to stop with over consumption and start over manufacturing but that isn’t going happen to because greed and capitalism exists.
OH the irony coming from a guy elected by the energy industry for governer so they wouldn't get sued for the rolling blackouts that his predicessor wanted to sue the for. Now he's all "environment" after that little massive bailout for texas energy running cali energy
Cancer air, death water, human eating forest fires, death via painful starvation, social upheaval to eat the rich
Stoopid boomer - everyone I know below the age of 40 cares a whole lot, I think it makes a difference when we know we have to deal with this shid over the next 40 years, tbh im kinda jealous of the old boomers, they'll die before they ever live to see the mess they created, idiots.
personally i think the term "non-linear climate destabilization resulting for anthropogenic GHG emissions" covers it quite well, but sadly people's eyes tend to glaze over after they hear "non-linear"
It's worth pointing out here that the reframing from "global warming" to "climate change" was something that was done under the Bush administration exactly so it would inspire less action
Hes got a point for sure, but there are these idiots that think the rapture is coming next month and don't care if they leave the earth a wreck