• Naz@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    I’m a solarpunk who lives in a tiny apartment and bikes everywhere and has 100% renewable energy’l production and heating. Vegetarian also, but lots of dairy

    The calculator still said I needed 1.8 earths to offset my lifestyle.

    What do they want me to do, keel over and die? My carbon impact is almost zero, and is actually negative with my research and contributions into 3D photovoltaics.

    I don’t think “planting 200 trees per year per person” is tenable. I think slapping a huge fuck-off fine on a major polluter is a much easier and effective strategy.

    My personal yearly CO² impact is dwarfed by a single container ship travelling just 8 miles burning bunker oil.

    Personal responsibility in this case isn’t the answer, social responsibility is. No one human being alone could damage the environment to this extent.

    • Atelopus-zeteki@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Thanks for what you do. Most anyone on this thread, except the trolls, are not the problem. All I’m suggesting is using the plant kingdom to fix carbon out of the air. No solely that, of course, but at least some of that.

      I’m trying to understand what exactly solar punk means. My main transport, a surly ogre is sitting in view not 10 feet from where I sit. I put solar panels on my roof last year, something I’ve been meaning to do for decades. I eat from my garden and local farmers as much as I can. I haven’t flown in a plane since 2019, and may not ever again. I’ve never been on a cruise ship, probably never will. But yeah, one container ship, one private jet, adds up to a lot of carbon real fast.

    • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yep, that was my original point. Trees just can’t cut it. They have such a little impact they’re almost not worth even discussing. Far larger gains can be found elsewhere.

        • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Well, kind of… Reducing carbon emissions would be far more effective than trying to capture the emissions we currently use.

            • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              I didn’t say you can’t do both. The real danger is the green washing. In fact, it’s not a danger, it’s currently already used to subvert carbon cap and trade regulations. Scams of companies that sell carbon credits for protecting forestry that aren’t endangered to begin with. There is little to no oversight of this and is hurting our progress to fixing the issue.