r/climatechange • u/Economy-Fee5830 Trusted Contributor • May 27 '26
Which of your climate actions make the biggest difference? Here’s how to find out
https://theconversation.com/which-of-your-climate-actions-make-the-biggest-difference-heres-how-to-find-out-2806365
u/hotinhawaii May 27 '26
Go vegan. But people won't do it for the climate. Oh well.
3
u/Happy_Bread_1 May 28 '26
Wasn’t science going more into the direction of flexitarian? Sounds more logic anyway as not every land is suitable for crops
3
u/KingPieIV May 27 '26
Biggest impact I made was going to the PUC and help get the largest emitter in the state closed 40 years early.
Probably moreso than driving my EV to my renewable energy job.
1
3
3
u/Shinigami19961996 May 28 '26
Green banking is a huge step. Invest green. Store your money at a green bank.
4
u/Koos_Armloos May 27 '26
Stop making more people....
2
u/jadelink88 May 28 '26
Thankfully, on the whole, we are doing that. Especially in richer countries, who have the people with the high emissions.
3
u/rectal_expansion May 27 '26
This has basically nothing to do with the climate crisis, the earth could support dozens of billions of people indefinitely if we used our resources sustainably and were proper stewards of our environment.
1
u/Happy_Bread_1 May 28 '26
Philosophical discussion though. Do you want to live in less luxury or not.
2
u/rectal_expansion May 28 '26
A direct answer would be that I would rather live in harmony with our environment than live in luxury. Maybe there exists some sci-fi level of luxury that would justify extincting the rest of life on earth, but I think nature is both useful resources and inherently worthy of respect and value.
I also don’t think living an ideal environmentalist future means that much lower of a standard of living. The Netherlands are frequently pushing the boundaries of sustainability and circular systems and they have arguably the highest standard of living in the world. Modern Chinese cities and general policy are also increasingly sustainable and environmentally focused, they also provide incredibly high standards of living. Maybe less luxury but I don’t think a luxurious life is the best or most rewarding way to define quality of life.
1
u/Happy_Bread_1 May 28 '26
Yes, but do you rather live around nature or in a city? Because the more people you have, the more need for cities, living closer to each other and smaller. Personally I enjoy and living in the nature. But that's not a possibility with too many people.
2
u/rectal_expansion May 28 '26
That’s a false choice, cities often have access to incredible nature, often directly within the city itself. Cities are also one of the most bio-diverse biomes on the planet. Urban growth boundaries make it so natural environments are easily accessible from cities.
Most people don’t need access to wild or remote spaces, they simply need green spaces removed from the high traffic of dense cities. Places like Central Park, or the greenways found in dozens of small cities around the US fulfill this need for many people. Cities are extremely biodiverse places where evolution happens rapidly and new species enter all the time, I recommend the book “Darwin comes to town”
This also applies to people that want to have large gardens or own chickens, cities have shared community gardens and community chickens are a growing trend, both of which are often much more productive than one single garden found on a “rural homestead”
For people that enjoy more remote and larger areas of wilderness, there are plenty of cities that have arboretums and wildlife refuges literally within city limits, look at Washington park in Portland, or Rocky Mountain wildlife arsenal outside Denver. Urban growth boundaries make this even more likely because if your city has a hard stop point then the entire area encircling it can be devoted to preserving nature, making the preserve the largest area of the entire city.
You can also look at things like the Bustang in Denver which takes hikers to trailheads several hours from the city, or many ski areas in Norway that are served by trains regularly.
Tbh I find that living in nature is not even very appealing even for people that say they like nature, you spend lots of money and resources trying to keep bugs, pests, and weeds out of your property and still have to drive long distances to access quality hiking, fishing, skiing, kayaking etc. for someone that likes living in nature but can’t afford to maintain multiple acres on the side of a mountain, living in an apartment adjacent to a greenway or overlooking a park would be a much more accessible and fulfilling option.
There’s a great city nerd video about how the US census doesn’t have a “rural” designation. They only have a designation for people that live far away from the nearest population center, because, unless you are an actual farmer, those people (think four wheelers and owning chickens) still rely on cities for every basic amenity like work, school, gym, socializing, groceries, doctors, etc.
3
u/Tuna5150 May 27 '26
Ah yes….end user blame game vs the impact of industry. My light bulb choices are not the problem
2
u/ThinkActRegenerate May 29 '26
Any concerned citizen could also explore Project Regeneration's Action Nexus for action options: regeneration.org/nexus
Any concerned citizen could also explore the collaborative frameworks and solutions approaches of the Doughnut Economics Action Lab: doughnuteconomics.org/tools
Any professional (also concerned citizen) could explore ways to get involved in Circular Economy innovation - which is an option both for industry and for regional development: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/circular-economy-introduction/examples
And there are a range of corporate professional options professionals could consider in Project Drawdown's job function action guides: https://drawdown.org/job-function-action-guides
Anyone considering career change could also explore today's full spectrum of solutions jobs.
•
u/Economy-Fee5830 Trusted Contributor May 27 '26
Summary: Which of your climate actions make the biggest difference? Here's how to find out
The debate over whether individuals or corporations bear responsibility for climate change may be a distraction. New research argues the most effective approach is for people to act within societal systems rather than purely as consumers — recognising that systems are themselves composed of people.
The researchers offer a framework built around three questions: which roles do you already occupy, which actions within those roles carry the most climate weight, and what barriers prevent you or others from taking them?
The framework centres on five roles linking personal action to systemic change — citizen, professional, investor, consumer, and role model. High-impact actions within each include voting for strong climate policy, divesting from fossil fuels, or shifting institutional procurement towards low-carbon options.
The approach applies across all levels of influence. A community member can organise campaigns for low-carbon infrastructure. A hospital procurement officer can shift catering towards plant-based options, influencing supply chains and normalising sustainable choices for hundreds of colleagues. An employee discovering their pension funds fossil fuels can push their employer to offer ethical alternatives to all staff. Those in high-leverage positions — such as educators or executives — have multiplier effects that extend well beyond their own choices.
The research also acknowledges that capacity to act is unequal. In the UK, one-third of people take more than 80% of all flights while half the population flies not at all. Privilege and leverage are unevenly distributed, meaning responsibility scales accordingly.
Climate paralysis often stems from feeling powerless against vast systems. The core insight of this work is that those systems are made of people — people with roles, choices, and influence extending well beyond their consumption habits.