It’s rough but no one said it would be easy! I have heard this saying: “we don’t need one person doing zero-waste perfectly; we just need many people doing it imperfectly” (or something like that”. This year I’ll focus on drinking less milk and finding ways to find zero-waste soap

Amen to that

Free books= happy. but sad cuz i need to deliver them back and not keep it :S i actually have some books i "forgotten to deliver" one special is Visual basic 6.0 programming book, but it`s in norwegian so it`s impossible to buy i did find it once but extremly expensive tho.

Modern problems require ancient solutions. #libraryrofalexandria

No, the individual contribution to CO2 emission is not negligible. According to MyClimate, in average a single person living in Europe generate 8.4t CO2 per year. In fact this number is the total CO2 emission of European country divided by the number of inhabitant. So, yes, it also includes companies emission. Let compare this 8.4t with other numbers from MyClimate: - Flight form London to New-York and back: 1.8t (= 21% of 8.4t) - Flight from London to Tokyo and back: 3.2t (= 38% of 8.4t) - Flight form London to Zurich and back: 0.362t (= 4% of 8.4t) - Flight from London to Indonesia and back: 4.6t (= 55% of 8.4t) !!! (feel free to play with the CO2 Emission Calculator from MyClimate) As remainder the YoungForTheClimate (Climate Strike) request 2t of CO2 emission per inhabitant per year (in 2030), and MyClimate says that we can only put 0.6t to "stop" climate change. (The Paris Accord goal for 2030 is higher than 2t per inhabitant and is still unlikely to be achieved...) The total air transport CO2 emission is only 2.5% of the overall emission BECAUSE the big majority of Earth inhabitants has never get on a plane. If we focus on occidental countries this proportion is much bigger. Take for example Switzerland. In 2016, 40 million tonnes CO2 (4.73 per inhabitants) where emitted in total and 5.4 million tonnes for all the flight starting from Switzerland (so the flight coming to Switzerland are not counted. But this is fair, because not only Swiss people goes aboard, there are also people from other places coming to Switzerland). That means 13.5% of the CO2 emission were due to fly. (I'm curious about the data for 2020, one may observe a significant reduction in the total emission.) Another concern is that the number of flights quickly increases in Switzerland as in the world (before Corona). So this percentage may increase. Supressing all the fly will not solve all our problems, but it is the biggest impact one can have as a single person. Source: CO2 Emission by country: www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/ MyClimate CO2 Emission Calculator: co2.myclimate.org/en/offset_further_emissions Air transport CO2 emission in Switzerland (document in french): www.bazl.admin.ch/dam/bazl/fr/dokumente/Politik/Umwelt/co2_emissionen_grundsaetzliches_zahlen.pdf.download.pdf/CO2-Emissionen_des_Luftverkehrs_FR.pdf And in any case: - companies fabricates what will be sold (to supply the demand), if people stop buying unnecessary things, they will stop producing them - similarly if companies remark an interest for sustainability by their potential clients, they may go in this direction (at least for marketing purpose)

100% re your point on business and industry. Hope you’re doing okay!

@@braincraft I'm doing ok , this was a few yrs ago. Also its like 3am in Aus can't sleep eh?

@@scarletspidernz she's in the USA these days

@@theRealPadster ahh

@@scarletspidernz all our best and brightest go overseas

preach! System Change not Climate Change

My parents used to recycle. A couple of months ago they stopped. They were insulted by Greta and the media. The said "f**k it" and started to throw everything on one single bin. They felt really insulted by society and the media, because it was - as they described it - "praising a mentally ill spoiled child that was directly insulting them". Nice backfire effect, bravo Greta and all your blind supporters... I can imagine other people felt this way too.

@@erikziak1249 bruh. How is recycling "praises" Greta? To be honest, I haven't seen her speech - climate change and garbage were a problem before that.

I've also been wondering about the direction of causation (if there is one). Isn't it the people who already live comfortably that are able to invest more money and effort (2:20)?

Totally. Even the bike sharing thing can be prohibitively expensive for low income individuals, and visiting a library means that you have enough time, energy and knowledge to value and practice reading/learning. People living in the kind of circumstances that lead to that kind of sustainable efforts are probably well off even without those efforts. Even controlling for socioeconomic status, people who make the same amount of money don't necessarily have equal amounts of free time or stress and that by itself could be a very important factor in your reported wellbeing AND your sustainability-directed behaviors.

@@onegrapefruitlover Yeah, I've also been thinking about the importance of executive (dys)function in general. A friend of mine lives very sustainably, which requires a lot of effort (the places to buy in bulk or compost trash are far from her place) and consistency (to avoid being buried under a heap of recyclable packaging). The thing is, she is very efficient in general and I guess that this is already correlated with a form of wellbeing (I don't have sources for this, I'm just thinking about what I'm currently learning concerning self-efficacy and goal setting).

Hi Li - thanks for watching (and your nice comments!) and bringing this up. As you've mentioned, it is tough as a KZfaqr to decide who to work with as sponsorships are necessary to keep my channel going (as well as patreon). There are a lot of companies that I turn down for ethical reasons (and some I worked with in the past that, in hindsight, I really shouldn't have 😕). Personally, I think pharma is complicated: in a year like this year, the industry has brought us a much needed COVID-19 vaccine. It also (in countries like the US) can contribute to high healthcare cost and disparity. I've also been closely following the Purdue story for the past few years, which has been jaw-dropping. When deciding whether to work with Merck, I found this story on an ethics watchdog site: ethicsalarms.com/2017/04/30/ethics-hero-corporate-division-merck/ While every company has its pros and cons, this one was really encouraging to me and ultimately put me over the line for this video sponsorship. I hope that helps explain some of my decision process.

@@braincraft thank you for clarifying! it's nice to see you put so much thought into what sponsorships you accept.

Thank you!! 🌏

Yes definitely! And when business/industry cut their waste too, it makes a big difference.

@@braincraft exactly

I've also been wondering about the direction of causation (if there is one). Isn't it the people who already live comfortably that are able to invest more money and effort (2:20)?

Yep, good tips!

And most importantly, protest so industries and companies have to be sustainable too You can't solve a global problem without fixing the global entities that cause it

Go back to caves. :-)

@@yoavshati No, the individual contribution to CO2 emission is not negligible. According to MyClimate, in average a single person living in Europe generate 8.4t CO2 per year. In fact this number is the total CO2 emission of European country divided by the number of inhabitant. So, yes, it also includes companies emission. Let compare this 8.4t with other numbers from MyClimate: - Flight form London to New-York and back: 1.8t (= 21% of 8.4t) - Flight from London to Tokyo and back: 3.2t (= 38% of 8.4t) - Flight form London to Zurich and back: 0.362t (= 4% of 8.4t) - Flight from London to Indonesia and back: 4.6t (= 55% of 8.4t) !!! (feel free to play with the CO2 Emission Calculator from MyClimate) As remainder the YoungForTheClimate (Climate Strike) request 2t of CO2 emission per inhabitant per year (in 2030), and MyClimate says that we can only put 0.6t to "stop" climate change. (The Paris Accord goal for 2030 is higher than 2t per inhabitant and is still unlikely to be achieved...) The total air transport CO2 emission is only 2.5% of the overall emission BECAUSE the big majority of Earth inhabitants has never get on a plane. If we focus on occidental countries this proportion is much bigger. Take for example Switzerland. In 2016, 40 million tonnes CO2 (4.73 per inhabitants) where emitted in total and 5.4 million tonnes for all the flight starting from Switzerland (so the flight coming to Switzerland are not counted. But this is fair, because not only Swiss people goes aboard, there are also people from other places coming to Switzerland). That means 13.5% of the CO2 emission were due to fly. (I'm curious about the data for 2020, one may observe a significant reduction in the total emission.) Another concern is that the number of flights quickly increases in Switzerland as in the world (before Corona). So this percentage may increase. Supressing all the fly will not solve all our problems, but it is the biggest impact one can have as a single person. Source: CO2 Emission by country: www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/ MyClimate CO2 Emission Calculator: co2.myclimate.org/en/offset_further_emissions Air transport CO2 emission in Switzerland (document in french): www.bazl.admin.ch/dam/bazl/fr/dokumente/Politik/Umwelt/co2_emissionen_grundsaetzliches_zahlen.pdf.download.pdf/CO2-Emissionen_des_Luftverkehrs_FR.pdf And in any case: - companies fabricates what will be sold (to supply the demand), if people stop buying unnecessary things, they will stop producing them - similarly if companies remark an interest for sustainability by their potential clients, they may go in this direction (at least for marketing purpose)

Hey Vivilon - I have addressed some criticism in the comments, so I would encourage you to take a look at all my replies. Liking comments is less about ignoring bad comments than just being human - when I put effort into a video I like positive comments! To answer your questions: I don't think individual action vs. big business is an either/or. Yes, industry contributes to way more global emissions and as such, any pro-environmental actions by business has a much bigger impact. Yes, I think we should encourage policy makers to legislate to have more environmental policies so we can see these changes (as ethical as most big business says they are - even companies beloved like Tesla - operate and produce/dispose of waste within current laws and parameters). I think as consumers, we should direct our purchases towards more sustainable business when possible for us. But I have seen MANY individuals say "what's the point in me doing xyz when it doesn't make a difference [in global emissions]." Imho it's cognitive dissonance at it's best - it can be inconvenient and effortful to act pro-environment, so people use this as an excuse not to. Collective action can make a difference, it's important in getting people to care about issues, and as some of this research suggests it can make us feel better, too. And I think those who have greater income/access/potential to be making sustainable choices should be doing more to shoulder the burden (though this is tricky, as it often comes down to personal priorities and belief systems).

ah, thank you for the reply. Tbh, I just really did not see any replies by the time of my comment. I definetly see your point of cognitive dissonance and avoiding personal responsibility, but I do also see how there is a real feeling of powerlessness especially as it is a fundamentally societal and clasist issue. There is no justice to expect already marginalized people who are left behind in the whitewashed, neoliberal policy making to feel like they can have an impact or that they even have the capacity in life to care abhout these issue. I do agree that it is crucial that people should become far mire aware, involved and active in enviromental issues, but focusing these efforts on actual political activism instead of only simple consumption choices (the likes of which are shaped by privilege) is far more important and effective imo. As it is, the notion that the nature of capitalist consumption in the merits of the system as it exists today is the tool that will formulate change can be seen as a form cognitive dissonance, too.

+

Thanks!

😂

For more context I was thinking in terms of the COVID-19 vaccine, developed in the span of 12 months, that is going to prevent needless death and reopen borders again.

🍕

Sadly, there are no locally produced oranges where I live. Or bananas. Or other healthy foods, like sea-fish.... But I really wonder when I see supermarkets selling produce, which had to travel thousands of kilometers to get to the store, produce that can and also is being made locally. Like potatoes, onions, tomatoes, peppers, "fresh" meat... I usually just cynically grin when I imagine all the extra "carbon footprint" of such things in the shelves. But people buy them. They are cheaper than locally produced ones. Why? Because subsidies in other countries. Because a slightly better climate there.... But it is more due to subsidies I think, as the modern methods are less affected by the weather.

@@erikziak1249 red meat can be local for everyone

@@borissman That is correct. But the world is deformed by all sorts of subsidies, quotas, politics, economics. And most of all: human greed. People fighting fire with fire (metaphorically). In the end, what seems to be cheaper will be expensive in the long run.

🦑

🦑

Eventually, yes 😬

Not me. I'll simply cease to exist when I no longer have anything to do.

So?

Unless you're super rich and fly a ton, your personal carbon footprint means almost nothing If EVERYONE lived more sustainably, big companies with massive carbon footprints would inevitably reduce their footprint, but there's no way this could happen The change has to come from big industries

@@yoavshati I disagree. The earth simply can not sustain 7 plus billon humans for any real amount of time. Vast habitats and resources are been depleted or destroyed everyday all over the world to feed the world's insatiable demands. Humans are only really sustainable in very small numbers, spread over huge areas and living modest lives (think nomadic tribes). Economic laws apply equally to nature as they do to humans, there are good reasons why you aren't tripping over apex predators. Our fate is no different to bacteria colony in a petri dish - neither will live forever, they eventually choke on their own waste products and or exhaust their resources as shall we.

@@TurinTuramber Your argument is probably valid but also completely pointless. We're too many, alright, what are we gonna do about that? Genocide? Forced sterilization? One child policies? Doom and gloom aren't part of a solution.

@@onegrapefruitlover I wasn't trying to be an Eeyore actually. First solution to solving any problem is acknowledging exactly what the problem is. We all might live happier lives by telling ourselves sustainability lulluabys, pretending that if we do our own little bit things will work out okay. Some people seek to hear the truth about it instead. In recent years our presence on Earth has exploded. Exploded is very apt because on a species timeline that is exactly what the last 100 years will look like - an explosion. Never before did any individual live such radically different lives to their grandparents or even parents. Our children will live different lives again and so on. By every metric possible our species is on course for a cataclysmic population crash, other species already tell us we are currently living in a mass extinction event, it is inevitable that we will join them. This is how we reduce our numbers, we reach this destination. Don't worry about saving the planet, that is arrogance on our part. The planet will endure us, then surpass us. Don't think it's because I don't care and that I am in any way wreckless or wasteful, I am actually pretty meek in my lifestyle. I am simply looking at our situation, like a school kid that gazes at an ant farm.

Agreed.

Plant based diets can cause increased flatulence... Increasing greenhouse gas production.

@@Tinker001 Lol I hope your being sarcastic

@@D0J0Master Not at all...

@@Tinker001 do you have a source for this? I have never heard this... If your implying vegans fart more I can assure you that's not the case, lol well atleast for me

@@Tinker001 Lol please give me a source... I have never heard of this and genuinely though it was a joke because it sounds so ridiculous