Personally I think we should reduce the use of fossil fuels quickly and switch to clean energy. We have the appropriate technological level for this change to occur, and only the economic interests of a very small percentage of the world's population is preventing it.

Yes, no fossil fuels or coal, as they still use in Poland for example. And maybe think twice before buying stuff. Because shipping or any transport, packaging, producing and other step of either the proces has a big impact on the footprint we leave on earth. And since I think twice about the stuff I want I buy less.

Second big thing research has proved is that it's 'green' to lessen your meat-intake. I'm not talking about healt or poor animals at the moment since that is not the topic. But it it is economicly interesting to reduce eating meat. So my family did that.

And of course we separate our waste and take short showers don't use airplane if we want to go on vacation. If I speak for myself it is not only about what the government can do but what everyone can do. Put on a warm sweater and turn the heat down. And Christmas is about being together and pudding not about big presents and lumps of meat.

The only thing is that I still use oilpaint :/ No good green substitute for that I'm afraid :'(

I agree with you Francisco, but these are powerful people and people who have power beyond their numbers.

I agree Kyrr, but there are other things like being a vegetarian, that also has an impact. I think one of the problems is that the outcomes of behaving pro- or anti- environment are not immediate. If we drove in a car and there was an immediate and obvious environmentally deleterious reaction to this then we may not drive. Similarly, if we did not drive and we could see an environmental benefit then we would be motivated to do this. But, the environmental outcomes of our actions are too far in the future to motivate us. We have to read and become aware of the probable consequences of our actions.

But what you say is not true. The outcomes of our behaviour is not happening far in the future. Where did you read that? First articles published about this climate change were in the early 80's if we started changing things then we wouldn't have as big of a problem now. Thirty years are not much time, are they? They might be in a human life but we speak about dying species (a serious amount of insects at the moment) and about the melting of the pole-caps. And we all know their 'mirror' function.

Maybe people are easily distracted by other things. And care more about comfort, and in my opinion being abused by the industry that makes people believe that they need stuff.

I definitely wouldn't know how to change things on a big scale. I see what the Danish government is doing and I hope the Dutch will follow. The French will stop importing a lot of produce like palmoil and coffee. And EU is trying to change Poland ideas about using coal, soon I hope.

I added some text and links I was checking out. Good day for you. I go to sleep.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/28/global-food-system-is-broken-say-worlds-science-academies?fbclid=IwAR1q6A6zYHBczt196Cj25nKh1A0HgW01qwLnCQcynsHdYxypg6oU7lnG45M

https://www.earth-law.org/climatecrime_pr/

Any measure we take to reduce the consumption of any type of product to the minimum necessary is important to reduce air pollution caused by warming. But the perpetual consumption is at the base of the current economic system, it would be necessary to change the economic model, which would imply a titanic struggle against those who obsess the global economic power, which they have accessed thanks to work and, above all, to the high level of consumption of the rest of the population. Although this should be the long-term objective, in the short and medium term it is necessary to change the type of energy we use to produce, process and market the products we consume, including agricultural products and livestock, of course.

How can people help to change the energy we use? I changed my bank account for one who doesn't invest in big nasty industries. We did the same with more things like health endurance and so on.

Are there more things a single household can do?

Kyrr, when I said the far future I did not mean hundreds of years I meant far future in human terms. We find it hard to attribute cause unless we can see a direct outcome to an action, or we incorrectly attribute an apparent immediate event as being due to our actions when they are not. Some people still believe that smoking does not cause cancer, for instance, and others believe in paranormal phenomena and gods. What you say, is, in my opinion correct. The point I was making is that it is hard for us to act based upon the possibility of changes happening in a decade's time. As academics we will fly to that academic conference knowing that we are adding to climate change, but we justify this and we find it easier to do this as there is not an immediate environmental reaction to us taking the flight. We have to consciously evaluate the believed consequences, and when we start to involve beliefs, values, attitudes, etc., then everything becomes less tangible.

We can not forget either that only a quarter of the world's population is responsible for most of the pollution caused by warming, and that it is also that part of the population that has the knowledge, technology and possibilities to Take the appropriate measures to avoid it. But you need an awareness campaign that I see very difficult to be successful, because it must counteract the bombing that companies, and also institutions, do to increase consumption. The fallacy consumption = well-being has penetrated very deep in today's society and is also sustained with billions invested in marketing and publicity that can not be matched in an environmental awareness campaign.

You are totally correct Francisco. So, is there no hope that we will be able to stop the climate of the earth altering dramatically?

The problems of atmospheric pollution, of oceans, of soils. The overexploitation of resources, the destruction of ecosystems, the extinction of species. They are an inevitable consequence of the prevailing economic model. It will be very difficult to solve those problems without changing the model. It is not a matter of whether or not the man can move forward without changing anything. Surely he can. It is about whether we want to continue working alone on a dead plant, or accompanied on a living planet.

I do not think we, us human beings, are very good at changing the myths we live by. In the West we have this myth of perpetual growth and that growth is a good thing. I am not sure if the economical system produced this or grew out of it. But, I think we have to change the underlying growth myth before we will or can change the economical system. I am not optimistic as those who benefit from the growth economy are the rich and powerful and perpetuate the myth.

It is sad to read and sad to know. Yesterday we had a discussion about this topic at home. And Paul the thing you say about the people who benefit from the growth they might be the the ones who are not willing to change. But the unknown consumers are the people we have to reach and try to motivate and inform. It's not, how do you say that, a changing thing but at least something. My dad for example, didn't know that transport by shipping was a no go for global wellbeing. Now he spreads the word ;) Sorry for the pun.

I think by using of electrical cars and busses, we can solve this problem. We can use solar cells to capture solar energy and create electricity. However, this technology is still very expensive for African countries.