The only ways you can fight climate change in any meaningful way with 10k also involve going to prison
The only ways you can fight climate change in any meaningful way [...] involve going to prison
correct
https://archive.org/details/ecodefense-a-field-guide-to-monkeywrenching
You cannot have any significant impact with 10,000$ use it to enjoy your life. We are all doomed anyway.
I've heard a statistic that goes something like: If you were to just not exist, you would only save about 1 second worth of emissions globally. Whatever individual action you do to reduce emissions from your lifestyle only go so far.
And like others have mentioned, there are the other, less legal forms of direct action.
Its a drop in the ocean and I'm going to come off negative here but your up against jets, deliveries on demand from across the globe, mass meat industry and oil companies that will lobby against their destruction and in tern for mass extinction. If you really want to fight climate change move somewhere that won't see the effects, install solar learn to live off the land. An alternative if not too late become a revolutionary topple capitalism the system that allowed us to get to this point and beyond.
Dude, leave the meat alone. Humans have been eating meat for tens of thousands of years and there was never a problem. It's the life style we have which created the demand for cars, deliveries, heavy machinery spinning. Those are bigger enemies. Meat is like you said, a drop in the ocean.
What a stupid argument, why don't you go full power and use the same for oil?
No but were they factory farming, loosing over half theyre stock to wastage. Might as well say reject modernity let's use lead fucking pipe for our water.
The perfectly alienated and isolated liberal approach that changes nothing. Festooning a suburban house with solar panels is like washing your oversized pickup truck with those unbleached brown recycled paper towels.
However, advocating for vasectomies and such gestures towards eugenics and eco-fascism.
I'd probably donate it to the Thorium guys. Either the ones that just built the reactor research lab in Texas, or the shipyard ones. If coal becomes economically obsolete, the gigatons of CO2 will drop off like a rock.
From what I understand nuclear in general is (at least now) a dead end as a climate change solution.
- From planning time to turning on the reactor is something like 15 - 20 years (note, that's longer than the global average of 7 years for construction, because construction is not the whole picture)
- It's difficult to have more than 1 plant project ongoing simultaneously due to the scale and complexity
- Nuclear plants take a lot of C02 to construct and maintain. The fuel has to be mined, resulting in emissions, and the amount of concrete required massive. 1 ton of concrete creates .8-.9 tons of C02, and a nuclear power plant has hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete in it.
- We still don't have a good answer for handling nuclear waste.
Maybe at some point in the past nuclear could have resolved many climate change issues, but between project time, initial emission cost, and waste, it just doesn't seem viable anymore.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think the "shipyard guys" are trying to tackle 1 & 2 (as well as lessening the concrete on #3). Though, I would be surprised if your numbers for #3 are right... it seems odd to me that a ton of concrete would produce about a ton of CO2 (but maybe it's just one of those counter-intuitive things!). Thorium is interesting for #3/mining because it is produced (unrefined) by rare-earth mines (unlike special-purpose uranium mines). As for #4, I would argue simply that it is "better than coal" insomuch as we have neither found a good way of dealing with the fly-ash and soot-ash from coal power plants (yet they operate); i.e. ash ponds & coal ash impoundments.
I gotta say, the C02 number seems very high to me too, just got that from a quick search and saw that a couple of times. I haven't investigated it closely tbh.
I wasn't aware of the mining differences between uranium and thorium, that is encouraging.
Regarding the waste, that's a fair point as well. Thanks for the response! Interesting points.
I used to be very pro nuclear energy. Besides the waste and the occasional meltdown it seemed like a no brainer as a renewable supplement. After learning a little more about it though it just seems like we have more runway for positive growth with wind and solar than nuclear, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
I agree with the other guy, get yourself some solar panels and make yourself climate friendly, or even look at other ways you yourself an change in order to be carbon neutral
As a few people have said, buying something like solar panels, or the deposit on an electric car would probably be the best - reducing your impact is probably the most you can do.
The other option could be green investment.... They do exist, ignore 'transitional energy' funds (90% oil majors), look at the individual shares that any fund that looks interesting. I have some money in EdenTree funds. That way your money is hopefully helping do good, while (hopefully) growing so you can do something that will have a bigger personal effect.
