There are lots of ways we are tackling the climate crisis, bringing down emissions and sucking carbon out of the atmosphere. But which method is the most cost-effective? For a given investment, which draws down the most carbon emissions? In this video I answer that question… and then talk about why that answer doesn’t necessarily mean much.
This video is highly recommended by Tournesol community:
[48🌻] Simon Clark: What is the cheapest way to beat climate change?
#Tournesol is an open-source web tool made by a non profit organization, evaluating the overall quality of the information in videos to fight against misinformation and dangerous content.
Fizz@lemmy.nz 7 months ago
The best option of all of this is pressuring China. There is no justification for the amount of emissions they produce and are projected to produce. They don’t give a single fuck about reducing emissions because they can point to the Carbon per captia stat as if more people justifies more pollution. Every other 1st world country in the world is reducing emissions except for the 1 country that pollutes more than the next 6 biggest polluters combined.
grue@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Pressuring China is good, but not good enough to beat out biking. (They’re also not either-or options, so there’s no real excuse not to do the latter.)
Fizz@lemmy.nz 7 months ago
If bike usage doubled in the west which is very unrealistic it still wouldn’t reduce emissions as much as China reducing their emissions by 1%.
The sheer amount of co2 China is releasing is insane and its increasingly ever year. China alone releases 36% of the world’s co2. If you can pressure them to follow what the west is doing you can make giant gains in co2 reduction. If you ignore China then all your efforts will be futile because they will continue to increase emissions.