First because big changes happen when we as a community decide as a group on either making it all-in – mandatory, such as no smoking indoors, or simply phase out incandescent light bulbs; or opt-out, like Austria automatically enrolling everyone in organ donor programs but allowing the right to say “not me thanks”. one-person-by-one-person change programs, the normal approach in the US, UK and Australia, usually stall at 15-25% take-up rates, leaving the rest of the population to do what they want.

Secondly because the climate change mitigation steps we need are basically big structural: switch the energy system over the clean, and be quick about it. If we were all using solar and wind we wouldn’t in fact, need to reduce our energy consumption (whether we should anyway becomes a separate point). There is more than enough energy floating around in the world to power a few globes worth of people, the only issue is harvesting it sustainably and without harm to others.

On resources management: agriculture, oceans, etc – we actually need structural changes not voluntary schemes. We need compulsory fisheries management plans and a fast shift to a big international scheme of marine reserves; we need phasing out of nitrogen-based fertiliser for farming (a greenhouse gas tax would do this) to be replaced by biochar and other options; and so on.

This post is great. Will be especially helpful when I start my position as “Greening Officer” in the New Year. Thanks :)