Home | About | Donate

Millennials Must Keep up the Pressure Following the Paris Climate Deal


#1

Millennials Must Keep up the Pressure Following the Paris Climate Deal

I was 15, sitting on a London tube headed for the Houses of Parliament with my mum, when she leant forward and warned me that she might be about to get arrested. It was 2009 and we were on our way to a climate change protest she had helped to organise.

Together with a group of friends - all women - she had co-founded an environmental lobbying group to demand that the government take urgent action on climate change in the run-up the Copenhagen UN climate talks.


#3

I don't get the impression that author understands what it would now take to stay under 1.5C. The link gives a good indication. Nobody promised to keep the temperature under 1.5C. It was simply included in the Paris agreement as an aspiratioin.

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/about/news/150521-15-scenarios.html


#4

Meanwhile you have reposted this same comment many times before and do everyone a disservice by your mindless egotism.

The person who wrote this article and all the young people he mentions of his generation deserve more than your taking yet another opportunity to repost your form letter spiel.

What is wrong with you Shazaam?


#5

What is wrong with you, Wereflea? Shazaam performs a valuable public service by pointing out that the article ignores the elephant in the room. That has nothing to do with egotism and everything to do with promoting the truth over propaganda. It takes insight to realize that an article on the subject of climate change is ignoring the number one driver of climate change. Whenever one of us with some insight points out that an article is ignoring the central issue of its own topic, you say that we are going off-topic and exhibiting egotism. Good grief. Shazaam, don't let Wereflea inhibit your postings. Keep up the good work! The truth about the animal slaughter industry will eventually become well-known, despite those who are working overtime to ridicule the truth and those who dare say it out loud.


#6

See why you people are doing others a disservice. Shazam completely ignored this young person's point and hijacked the discussion off topic and worse reposted the same old post that has been posted several times before.

It is almost psychopathic in its lack of empathy for the feelings of this young person. How about talking to people instead of to yourselves? How about joining the community instead of just pushing your own agenda without regard for other people or the subject being discussed.

You often say the meat industry isn't discussed but you know it has. Instead you try to make all talk about climate change only about eating meat. Moreover you push exaggerated statistics which are not supported by science.

What does that make you? A crank maybe? How about letting people talk about climate change in other ways than focusing on vegetarianism?

By the way do let us adults know just when billions of people will suddenly stop eating meat since to have any appreciable effect on global warming it would have to be billions in less than twenty years. Do show just how rational and sane you are and answer that particular question. Do you think such a sudden shift from eating meat by most of the world's population is at all possible in twenty years or less?


#7

If you insist on emphasizing the role of meat eating in global warming you should also including consuming dairy products. You shouldn't be giving vegetarians who consume dairy products a free pass on this. They also are guilty of contributing to global warming because of their diets. Also, you are using a very strange way to divide emissions into sectors. The more common way of using sectors such as transportation, electricity, industry, agriculture, residential heating, etc. is much more useful for finding solutions. With your sectors you wind up with eating meat accounting for half of emissions and since it is virtually guaranteed that people in huge numbers aren't going to stop eating meat where does that leave you? Basically in a hopeless situation. It's a big waste of time.


#8

Thanks to the author for a good article, but Shazaam, I feel that you are getting ethical matters confused with the main causes of climate change. Eat whatever you want, but don't equate eating meat with the main cause of climate change. It is actually a relatively minor player compared with food waste, household heating and cooling, the construction, manufacturing, transport and war industries. I hope that you realise that the loathesome practice of keeping animals under artificial factory prison conditions is enabled by the fossil fuel industry. Please get the science right.

Therefore, if we take away the enablers of industrialisation such as coal, fracked unconventional gas and tar sands we will take away our ability to cause such damage. Do you really think that the McDonalds eaters will ever voluntarily turn vegan? Of course they won't, but if we go into the sort of mobilization necessary to beat climate change we will have to change both our ethics and wasteful habits. The coal based industrialisation of all human processes has caused our downfall. Please think about this matter and don't distract people from real activism such as 350.org is using to try and get us to take our own future into our own hands.


#9

The elephant in the room is fossil fuel, factory farming is a horrible symptom of the damage, but fairly low down the list. If we don't stop using fossil fuel we will destroy every complex lifeform on Earth; whether they get eaten or die from flood, fire, famine, heatstroke or lack of oxygen is really rather beside the point. Let's work towards saving as much life as we can by shutting down coal, fracking and tar sands this year. The longer we put it off the more species will die.


#10

You have completely misunderstood the problem. Animal agriculture produces 51% of all greenhouse gases so to say factory farming causes less damage than fossil fuels makes no sense. Fossil fuels are used to generate electricity. No fossil fuels would be used if there was no demand for electricity. It is activities such as animal slaughter that create the demand for electricity. You have fallen into the logic trap created by those who want to hide the largest source of greenhouse gases. By focusing on fossil fuels, which merely supply a demand, you fail to see that the solution requires a reduction in the demand for fossil fuels. Factory farms/agribusiness will still produce 51% of greenhouse gases even if the electricity they use is generated by wind or solar power. To use wind or solar power to operate an industry that produces half of all greenhouse gases is certainly a waste of all that power.