Sometimes friends of mine say they feel guilt they aren't recycling more, or swapping out their lightbulbs for more efficient ones.

But those aren't really very important things to do to lower your emissions.

I think it's important that we all have a basic mental map of what really are the effective consumer choices.

This chart from Kimberly Nicholas and Seth Wynes at Lund University (2017) deserves to be more widely known.

And to add to that - all of these activities are absolutely DWARFED by the impact of you taking political action.

During this climate crisis we shouldn't really be acting as consumers at all, since it is fundamental change that is needed. But if you're going to be a Chidi Anagonye and worry about your ethical impact this chart ☝️is the best guide :)

Follow

@Loukas those who are aware of what humanity is about to face, should at least think twice before having a child.

@gojonnes personally I'd put having a family outside of that chart. I understand why the researchers included it for the sake of completeness, but for me it is not a comparable activity.

@Loukas I agree... but when I talk about thinking twice before having children, it's not because of the impact, but because of the future that we will be delivering to them

@gojonnes I can see that. Being a parent is hard enough during the best times. It's we harder during times of war and plague and famines.

@Loukas @gojonnes I would argue that raising children that think critically, support important movements, and live sustainably far outweigh any potential emissions.

@gojonnes @Loukas there's another way to look at this:

If you don't have a kid, that's one fewer future adult raised by a sane parent who recognizes the impacts of climate change.

I worry about what my kids will have to put up with, but the future of our planet and our race is, in the end, more important.

This might feel like a post facto justification, and it may well be, but I'm confident my kids will be forces for good and change.

I want a legacy of activism, not a history of it.

@Loukas @gojonnes yeah, feels like a category error, if you're going to include kids, why not pets? But still, I think this is a really good piece of communication.

@tomp @gojonnes yes I wonder why pets aren't on it. A large dog is equivalent to a car, I seem to remember.

@Loukas @tomp @gojonnes pets that are adopted have already been born. But they should be fixed and we should not be breeding dogs on purpose.

@Loukas @tomp @gojonnes Whoa. Is that true? I am currently childless (not planning on changing that either) and don't drive. However I have several pets.

@Loukas @gojonnes Yeah I really strongly dislike the inclusion of children on here as the "worst" activity ahead of cars and planes. It makes the whole graphic useless as far as I'm concerned.

@tomw @gojonnes after seeing the reactions here I'm going to reconsider whether the chart is too much of a distraction to be posted.

@Loukas The problem is that the thing about children isn't just one distraction on the chart, it's the whole punchline. They have even got an extra scale in there to incorporate its supposed impact. It seems to me designed to push a Malthusian agenda as its entire purpose.

@tomw personally I'm sure that's not the intent, because I know the researchers in question, but I accept that the fact it's there at all can be enough to render the whole chart suspect.

@tomw @Loukas @gojonnes but that's a fact that total emissions are also a function of population, whether you like it or not

@pvisconbio @Loukas @gojonnes Why pick on children then? It could say "your own continued existence".

@Loukas @gojonnes The "one fewer child" action doesn't seem to consider the communication of familial values from generation to generation. I'm glad Greta's parent's didn't have one fewer child.

@phrees @gojonnes yes I think it's debatable to include it in the category but I understand why they did.

@phrees @Loukas @gojonnes "Communicating familial values" -- come on now; we don't have to procreate to do that. If we can't win by persuasion, we're going to lose. Every child extends our ecological footprint by one generation. A long footprint covers as much ground as a broad one.

@ronsullivan @Loukas @gojonnes Umn ... "come on now" ... really? If you think ridicule is an effective form of persuasion then I don't have much hope for the impact of your efforts.

The * on the "one fewer child" column references: "Cumulative emissions from decendants decreases substantially if national emissions decrease."

How do we decrease national emissions? Consumer choice and ballot box. We can choose to have low carbon kids who buy and vote green.

@phrees @Loukas @gojonnes Do you live your parents' values? Are you sure your kids will live yours? How would you force them to? Think about all those Quiverfull families.

Of course we have to think about how we consume and how we vote. That and slowing our reproduction aren't mutually exclusive.

That responsibility rests most on comparatively affluent people like you and me.

@Loukas @gojonnes The fact that you react this way ought to make you think more deeply about your assumptions. Many of the activities are not comparable: for some disabled folks, for instance, giving up a car means becoming housebound. Not reproducing might be a lot easier to face.

I also reccomended: conceivablefuture.org/

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.