Instagram story viewer> @idnapper> Posts
AD Mitchell(@idnapper)'s profile avatar HD Profile

AD Mitchell

@idnapper

357
followers
2407
following
Just trying to help.
POSTS STORIES REELS
We cannot demand radical environmental action while treating our own high-consumption lifestyles as non-negotiable. The IPCC is explicit: affluent people contribute disproportionately to emissions and have considerable scope to reduce them while maintaining decent living standards. They can also influence wider change through the lifestyles they model, their investments and their advocacy for strong climate policies. (ipcc.ch) Where we have the money, knowledge and realistic alternatives to reduce our impact, we have responsibility for the choices we make. Our behaviour also helps shape what others aspire to and what changes become socially and politically acceptable. Corporations must be held accountable for their conduct. Governments must enforce pollution controls and require better production, durable products and responsible waste management. Personal responsibility sits alongside those obligations. Cleaner production addresses part of the problem. The scale and nature of consumption also matter: how often we fly, how much we drive, what we eat, how we house ourselves and how much we buy. Expecting governments and corporations to deliver radical ecological change while preserving every aspect of affluent consumption leaves a central driver of the damage untouched. Those of us with the means to change should be reducing our impact now, demonstrating that a good life can involve consuming less, and supporting the policies and infrastructure that enable others to do the same. by @idnapper
The IPCC, IPBES and IEA have made the scale of the challenge painfully clear. Yet people who passionately demand radical action continue treating their own high-consumption lifestyles as non-negotiable entitlements. It is a deeply confounding posture, especially among those with the resources and freedom to change. The frequent flights, private cars, car-based sprawl and resource-heavy diets remain fiercely defended. We want the planet saved, provided it requires zero personal inconvenience. Betting on technology to preserve every habit is a reckless gamble. Expecting governments and companies to deliver transformation while we keep rewarding destructive consumption is a recipe for stalemate. We help keep harmful activities profitable and make restrictions politically harder. Demanding systemic reform while refusing to question our own contribution to the damage is hypocrisy. Affluent societies also shape aspirations elsewhere. Presenting ever-growing consumption as success encourages the expansion of the very model we recognise as unsustainable. We need to demonstrate that a fulfilling life within ecological limits is desirable and achievable, and show that we are willing to live it. Systemic reform and individual accountability reinforce each other. Flying less, changing how we travel and eat, consuming less and sharing more can reduce harm while changing expectations. Together with collective organising, these choices help build both the demand for a different economy and the political mandate for government to act. by @idnapper
The headline is misleading. “Wildlife collisions down 91% along the corridor” sounds like a result for wildlife across a highway corridor generally. It refers to one 18-mile section of I-25 and a narrow measure: reported vehicle crashes involving large animals, principally deer and elk. The baseline was about 32 reported crashes a year; a 91% reduction brings that to roughly three. These are the collisions most likely to injure people, damage vehicles and generate insurance claims. This is not a 91% reduction in roadkill or harm to wildlife generally. Insects, birds and small animals are outside the headline figure. And this crossing system was built as part of an I-25 highway expansion that added lanes. Wildlife bridges can reduce some collisions while also helping make road expansion appear compatible with protecting nature. Thirty-two crashes falling to roughly three, for a limited group of large animals on 18 miles of road, is mathematically negligible beside the vast mortality and ecological harm caused by roads overall. The only way to avoid that mass killing is to bury all roads entirely. by @idnapper
A world without cars and sprawl. by @idnapper
Everyone talking about flying being bad needs to admit that the car is worse and should be phased out. by @idnapper
Are you kidding me?! It’s cheaper and 7 times less damaging. Come on people! by @idnapper
We are constantly told that our carbon problem began with the Industrial Revolution and the smokestacks of the 1800s. It didn’t. Look at the curve. Global fossil CO₂ emissions explode in the middle of the 20th century. And what else explodes at almost exactly the same time? Mass car ownership. Highways. And the car-based suburban way of life. Humans had been burning coal and adding fossil carbon to the atmosphere long before 1850. What changes the trajectory of the planet is what happens later. by @idnapper
The indirect ecological damage caused by cars is vastly more destructive than the physical impact of their windshields. For every 1 insect flattened on a car grille, an estimated 65 to 85 additional insects die invisibly in the surrounding ecosystem because their habitats were paved over, polluted, or overheated by a car-dependent society. So how many die on contact? 228 Trillion. How many in total? 15 to 20 Quadrillion. by @idnapper
BEEF. AI. FLYING. CEMENT. WIND TURBINES. MICROPLASTICS. We worry about all of them. Cars? Not so much. And yet… 1. BEEF vs CARS — climate Beef: ~3.0 billion tonnes CO₂e/year Cars + vans: >3.6 billion tonnes CO₂/year Cars + vans are bigger. 2. AI + DATA CENTRES vs CARS — CO₂ Data centres: 180 million tonnes/year Cars + vans: >3,600 million tonnes/year Cars + vans: >20× 3. FLYING vs CARS — CO₂ Aviation: ~1.0 billion tonnes/year Cars + vans: >3.6 billion tonnes/year Cars + vans: ~4× 4. MASS TRANSIT vs CARS — deaths per billion passenger-km Train: 0.03 Coach: 0.22 Car: 2.53 Cars: 84× trains. 12× coaches. 5. WIND TURBINES vs VEHICLES — US bird deaths/year Wind turbines: 234,012 Vehicles: 214,500,000 Vehicles: ~900× 6. MICROBEADS vs TYRES — primary ocean microplastics Microbeads: 2% Tyres: 28% Tyres: 14× 7. CEMENT vs CARS — CO₂ Cement: ~2.4 billion tonnes/year Cars + vans: >3.6 billion tonnes/year Cars + vans: >1.2 billion tonnes more. And we’re not shrinking the system. ~1.4 billion light-duty vehicles today. >2 billion projected by 2050. UNEP’s higher-growth trajectory: >2.5 billion. And most of this list is just emissions. Cars and car-based sprawl also consume land for roads and parking, fragment habitats, displace farmland, drive rubber demand and deforestation, shed tyre pollution, intensify heat, kill people and wildlife, suppress active travel and consume vast quantities of materials. The emissions are only one layer of the damage. We are preparing to multiply the whole system. by @idnapper
🚗💨 We talk a lot about beef and fossil fuels, but we are completely ignoring the ultimate climate monolith: Car-centric sprawl. When you add up the tailpipes, the concrete, the rubber, and the collateral damage, the car-and-sprawl lifestyle is responsible for a staggering 10.7 to 13.8 gigatons of CO2e every single year—roughly 20% to 25% of all human emissions on Earth. Here is what that actual footprint looks like: 🔹 The Tailpipe Baseline: Passenger cars alone pump out nearly 4 gigatons of direct carbon annually. 🔹 The Upfront Metal Debt: Building 1.5 billion cars and massive vehicles adds heavy industrial manufacturing tolls. 🔹 The Concrete Ocean: Global highway networks, vast parking lots, and sprawling suburbs devour millions of tons of cement and steel—industries that alone make up over 10% of global emissions. 🔹 The Hidden Feedback Loops: Sprawl paves over carbon-rich soil, creates massive Urban Heat Islands that supercharge air conditioning demands, and displaces local farmland—forcing remote forests to be slashed and burned just to keep us fed. We aren't just driving cars; we built an entire planetary layout around them. Drop your thoughts below! 👇🌍 by @idnapper
We stand together or fall apart. by @idnapper
Begin by determining what is necessary and physically possible, unconstrained by prevailing political, economic, institutional or cultural assumptions. Only afterward reintroduce implementation constraints, human needs, justice, feasibility and compromise. by @idnapper

Download All

Save the photos and videos currently loaded on this page.

0Photos
0Videos
Ready to download 0 / 0

Keep this tab open until your download is ready.
back to up