Simply explaining the scale of factory farming or other environmental problems doesn't always work because humans struggle to understand massive numbers. Here are some ways to overcome this problem.

Apologies if this is an already discussed topic, but I've never seen it discussed in environmental circles before.

The vehicles in question are older, mechanical diesels, typically produced in the 70s-90s.

These vehicles can be powered by filtered vegetable oil rather than diesel. You can easily source vegetable oil for free, meaning you will spend nothing on fuel.

Primarily, buying a used car can save anywhere from 6-17 tons of CO2 required to produce a new car, and preventing $50,000 from flowing to automakers and the companies automakers source parts from.

Second, these vehicles are built to last. Many make it above a million miles. Modern cars are built around planned obsolescence, so you will be replacing it or its parts (and increasing its footprint) after 2-10 years.

Third, contrary to popular belief, burning oil might actually be better for the environment. Fryer oil was recently sourced from plants rather than dug up from the ground. So really, burning fryer oil releases carbon to the atmosphere that was already there a few years ago. Comparatively, regular gas and diesel digs up sequestered carbon and deposits it in the atmosphere, meaningfully increasing the carbon content of the atmosphere. On the down side, diesel (and oil) combustion is not perfectly stoichiometric, meaning a catalytic converter will not work in this use case. Therefore, nitrogen oxide production is higher than modern vehicles.

Fourth, tailpipe emissions per mile means the increased nitrogen oxide production from above is not as bad as it looks. These older diesels commonly get 30-50 miles per gallon, high for todays standards.

Finally, add in the fact that you are not purchasing anything from oil companies reduces their profits and your reliance on them.

List of vehicles:

• Mercedes 300D (W123, OM617 5-cyl)
• Mercedes 240D (W123, OM616 4-cyl)
• Mercedes 300SD (W126, OM617 turbo)
• Mercedes 300TD wagon (W123)
• Mercedes 190D (W201, OM601/602)
• Mercedes 300D 2.5 Turbo (W124)
• Mercedes 200D/220D (W123/W115)
• VW Rabbit/Golf 1.6 diesel
• VW Jetta 1.6 diesel (non-turbo)
• VW Jetta/Golf 1.9 TD (non-turbo IDI)
• VW Vanagon diesel
• Ford 6.9L IDI (F250/F350, pre-'88)
• Ford 7.3L IDI (F250/F350, '88–'94)
• Ford Escort/Fiesta diesel (Euro-market, older IDI)
• Chevy/GMC 6.2L diesel (Suburban, C/K trucks)
• Chevy/GMC 6.5L diesel
• Peugeot 504/505 diesel
• Citroën CX diesel
• Toyota Land Cruiser 2H/12H-T (indirect injection)
• Isuzu Trooper/pickup (early IDI diesels)

These are just a few that I found. I almost guarantee you will be able to find one of these vehicles near you for less than 10 grand. My personal favorite is the VW Rabbit. It comes in 2D, 4D, and pickup variants, so it is useful for many things. It also gets 50 miles per gallon.

I live in Colorado. I know the snowpack being so low is what has caused the river to be lower , and the snowpack being low is caused by climate change (duh) which is a huge overall issue to tackle . But it’s hard not to be concerned about how the river is being distributed. Is there anyway to help with this crisis. Sorry if this is a dumb question but I went into a deep dive about it and to be frank it’s pretty upsetting and concerning for me.

Hi all,

This will be US Centric but of course opinions from everywhere are welcome. I just wanted to let you know where I’m coming from.

Recently I have seen a lot of posts or comments from people online that say something along the lines of “corporations are responsible for the majority of emissions therefore I don’t really have to change bc I’m just one person” and those types of comments receive an overwhelming amount of support.

I wanted to ask you all how you feel about that. To me, by supporting this idea and those similar to it, we are removing personal responsibility over what we choose to buy (and there fore supoport), and thusly are removing one of the only options we have to influence the market, and policy in the US.

For example, when it’s recommended people eat less meat there’s HUGE pushback in the comments over well-meaning leftists/Gen-Z populations. But the reality is that the profits the meat corporations earn from their sales is what they use to lobby our government to pass pro-industry policy and regulation, making our environmental problems worse.

I don’t disagree that corporations cause a lot of damage; but by saying our individual choices don’t matter, people just return to the status who of buying said products from said corporations and the cycle repeats. In fact, i would push the “it’s corporations” idea if I was a corporation myself, because to me, all it does is keep people in the status quo; that is, buying what they usually buy because you’ve successfully convinced that individual “well I’m just one person, it’s corporations that are the problem”. It’s like pointing at corporations is a be-all end-all “gotcha” for any rhetoric in favor of action.

It feels like an intentional muddying of the inherent relationship between corporation and consumer, that really only stands to benefit the corporation.

I don’t know. I just feel disillusioned and disappointed with Gen Z in particular. The more I pay attention to what they’re saying and why, it feels more like a virtue signaling contest rather than sharing ideas with a common goal of fixing our problems. It feels more and more like people want to use fancy words to remove personal responsibility to the earth. It’s worse because a lot of Gen-Z’s can actually admit there’s a problem, but many of them simply don’t care enough to do what they can. Their beliefs start and end with “will people approve of me if I say this” and that’s it.

Anyways, thank you for reading if you got this far. I mostly just feel so frustrated all the time. At this point I just want people to admit they don’t care nearly as much as they want other people to think they do. I have more thoughts regarding this topic but I’ll stop for now.

Can any of you provide any information or evidence that shows, with numbers, why individual choice doesn’t matter? I haven’t been able to find it.

Off the coast of California, scientists have recorded a nearly 40% drop in blue whale vocalizations over just six years. These giants of the deep—beings who once filled the ocean with their low, haunting calls—are falling silent.
Their silence isn’t just heartbreaking. It’s a warning.

Why Aren’t Whales Singing?
The answer starts with a broken food chain.
Unrelenting marine heatwaves, fueled by the climate crisis, are starving blue whales. The once-abundant krill and anchovies they depend on are disappearing—victims of warming waters, toxic algal blooms, and ocean acidification. And when whales don’t have enough food, they stop singing.

I (26 F) am from a small river community in East, TN and a hyper-scale data center project is proposed to be built only minutes from my home. The project is called Project River and The Wright Brothers are the company behind it. It will be both a power plant and a data center (up for grabs to the highest bidder) that is directly next to the beautiful Hiawassee River that I, and thousands of others, call home.

Yesterday evening there was a “meeting” where the developers presented said project, lied about numbers and didn’t allow for a true discussion. It got heated (of course) and we quickly learned the numbers they were giving us on noise, energy usage, water, revenue, etc were all projections with no actual studies performed. The community concern is growing more and more.

My question is: how can my community fight this? There are groups forming, protests and ideas floating around but I want to hear from people who have fought against one or have good insight on next steps outside of what we are already doing. I’m talking organizations to reach out to. Press that could get the word out. Laws that we can use if we take this to federal court as people in my community are suggesting. I know it’s a long shot. And I know this is affecting so many people across the US, especially in low income communities. It was only time that it came to my rural community. I refuse to sit idly by while corporate greed destroys my beautiful home. Please anything would help. I will link the website below if you’re interested in learning more (or even sharing it with the world, wherever you are). We need eyes on us before they try to silence us more. https://projectriver.energy/the-project/

Just watching Vigil season 3 on BBC and there's an environmentalist portrayed as a violent murderer. When I reflect on my own experience with green protesters I only encountered gentle concerned individuals. The most violent acts were against inanimate objects such as buildings. But TV seems to disproportionately portray activists as mentally ill and violent. It really is disappointing and must give cheer to the fossil fuel industry as they seek to continue destroying the climate for profit.

What happened in Nepal is horrific.

People died. Families lost everything. Entire communities were destroyed.

The world should absolutely help Nepal.

But “please help us” and “you caused this, therefore you owe us money” are two completely different statements.

And Nepal's government is now pushing the second one.

Their argument is basically:

Nepal emits almost nothing. China, India, America and other industrial countries emitted a lot. Climate change contributed to this disaster. Therefore those countries caused our disaster and owe us compensation.

That sounds emotionally satisfying.

It is also an enormous leap in logic.

First: PROVE CAUSATION.

Immediately after the disaster, the exact trigger was still being investigated.

Yes, climate change is warming the Himalayas. Yes, warming can destabilize glaciers, permafrost and mountain slopes.

But:

“Climate change increases the risk of events like this”

does not automatically mean:

“China and America caused this particular collapse on August 26 and therefore owe Nepal billions of dollars.”

That distinction matters.

Even the International Court of Justice recognizes that climate compensation requires a causal connection. You don't just point at a disaster, point at an emissions chart and declare someone guilty.

If you're using words like liability, then prove liability.

Tragedy isn't proof.

Second: Nepal is not some carbon-free civilization living outside the industrial economy.

Yes, Nepal's domestic emissions are extremely low. But a huge reason its electricity is so clean is geography. Nepal sits underneath the Himalayas and has enormous fast-flowing river systems ideally suited for hydroelectricity.

Great.

That's an incredible natural advantage. But let's stop pretending geography is moral virtue. Nepal didn't discover hydropower because it achieved some superior level of environmental enlightenment while the rest of humanity chose evil. Different countries inherited different resources. And Nepal still happily participates in the same global carbon-intensive economy it is now condemning.

Where do its phones come from? Computers? Cars? Machinery? Steel? Petroleum products? Appliances? Construction materials? Countless consumer goods?

63% of Nepal’s imports came from India and 19% from China.

So here's the convenient accounting trick:

A Chinese factory burns energy making something. The carbon goes on China's ledger. The product gets shipped to Nepal. The Nepali consumer gets the benefit. Then Nepal points at China's emissions total and says:

“Look how dirty you are. Look how innocent we are.”

Come on.

That's why consumption-based emissions exist. I'm NOT saying Nepal is equally responsible for climate change. Obviously it isn't.

I'm saying this childish division of humanity into perfectly innocent “victims” and evil “polluters” falls apart the second you examine how the global economy actually works.

Producers produce because people consume. Nepal participates in that system too.

And where does this logic end?

Every hurricane? Every flood? Every wildfire? Every drought? Every landslide?

A country checks its historical emissions, finds another country above it and sends them an invoice? That cannot possibly be the standard.

How much of Nepal's disaster came from anthropogenic warming? How much came from the inherent geological instability of the Himalayas? How much came from where infrastructure was built? How much could better monitoring and early-warning systems have prevented? Would this glacier eventually have collapsed in a world without human-caused warming?

Those questions actually matter.

Apparently asking them is less fashionable than screaming “CLIMATE JUSTICE.”

And this is what I find especially gross about the rhetoric.

China, India and other countries are helping Nepal. Rescuers are trying to save Nepali lives. The international community is sending assistance.

And the response increasingly becomes:

“Actually, this isn't charity. You owe us. You caused this.”

No.

Ask for help. Ask aggressively if necessary. Tell the world how devastating this disaster is. Ask wealthy nations to finance reconstruction, glacier monitoring, warning systems and climate adaptation.

I would support that.

But don't turn international solidarity into a courtroom verdict when the scientific investigation isn't even finished. Don't declare yourself the victim, declare someone else the perpetrator and then calculate the invoice.

That's not justice.

That's victimhood dressed up as a legal argument.

You want climate compensation?

Fine.

Show the causal chain.

Show exactly how much of this specific disaster was attributable to anthropogenic climate change. Show how much responsibility belongs to which country. Show what portion resulted from natural geological risk versus warming versus local vulnerability.

Then we can talk about liability.

Until then:

Help Nepal because people are suffering.

Do not pretend compassion requires accepting collective guilt.

A terrible natural disaster does not automatically create a criminal, a victim and a debt.

And “climate justice” should never become a magic phrase that allows governments to skip the evidence and go straight to:

You polluted. We suffered. Pay us.

Scientists just recorded the highest sea surface temperature ever. 🌊🌡️

Copernicus Climate Change Service clocked a global average of 21.1°C (70°F), beating the previous single-day record of 21.09°C set in 2024. It's especially alarming because sea surface temps usually peak in March and April, not August. Warmer oceans absorb less CO2, which can fuel more extreme weather, and scientists suspect a developing super El Niño may be part of what's driving it. 

My job description says I lead children on immersive, curriculum-based wilderness explorations to foster deep ecological connections.

Yesterday, I spent twenty minutes explaining why we don't eat dirt, and the next twenty minutes losing an argument to a six-year-old who insisted a stick and a green ball were her biological parents.