[cynicalsecurity]

Good luck trying to convince Russia or China to stop exploiting other countries, abandon fossil fuels or stop animal agriculture.

Here is the unsolvable problem of the climate activism. They can't save the climate, but they are capable of destroying their own homeland, playing right into the hands of those authoritarian monsters.

[aziaziazi]

Well then you didn’t understand the point of climate activism. It’s not about “saving the climate” but instead “keeping our home habitability”. You can choose to:

- keep packing more fellow on your homeland, our children with them. Don’t change anything but wish them good luck, the Science and Industry will solve everything as it always did anyway, right ? Guess what, it won’t make the two giants stop being authoritarian.

- not doing (much) more children in your homeland so no descents will suffer from the density. The “authoritarians monsters” will probably profit of that.

Do you really value democracy and freedom (I value it a lot, me too) so much that you continue gambling with descents’s home habitability?

It’s not about giving up but about recognizing that adding more soldiers won’t stop the war.

[cynicalsecurity]

I absolutely agree on trying to become a better person in terms of producing less waste. My point it, little effort won't work. We need radical solutions that could work on the global scale.

I want people to think big. Instead of carrying a water bottle and use paper bags focus on how you can help a whole country like India or China or even a whole continent like Africa.

Set goal of stopping Coca-Cola from dumping their plastic waste in Afrika. This would include much more effort than just carrying a water bottle or sleeping 8h.

[myshpa]

Don't look up!

> Good luck trying to convince Russia or China

Whataboutism. Best way to avoid doing anything.

> the unsolvable problem of the climate activism. They can't save the climate, but they are capable of destroying their own homeland

That's incredibly foolish.

[c00lio]

No. Prisoners' dilemma.

There are two possible answers to climate change: avoidance and preparation. Avoidance means that the world reduces its CO₂-footprint to zero or less to limit global warming or even to revert it. Preparation means that, if global warming cannot be avoided, states prepare for the changes in weather, sea level, agriculture, etc.

Avoidance can only work if all nations worldwide do participate to reduce their CO₂-footprint. If some big nations do nothing, or even worse, if non-consumption of fossil fuels by western nations causes a price drop and a shift of fossil fuel consumption to the rest (instead of an overall reduction), avoidance by the west is pointless and a waste of resources. All the world has to participate for avoidance to be successful.

On the other hand, preparation mostly works on a more local level. Nations with coastlines invest to protect those, nations threatened by water shortages invest in countermeasures such as maybe desalination or storages, etc. Even if the rest of the world doesn't care, preparation will mostly work for the local community.

Both avoidance and preparation need a lot of resources. But allocation to avoidance is only sensible if every nation agrees to it, otherwise those resources are wasted and far better spent on preparation.

[hgomersall]

The problem is, the general preparation problem is even harder than the avoidance problem. How do most countries handle 60m+ sea level rises from a complete melting of Antarctica? Where is going to get to a regular wet bulb temperature above 35 degrees? Can we handle the level of ocean acidification that business as usual will result in? We need to prepare, but let's not pretend we don't also need to avoid as best we can.