The narrative that the average joe is to blame for this shit is so infuriating to me. Myself and 50,000 other people could start walking everywhere and it very likely wouldn’t come close to offsetting the emissions of Amazon’s fleet of trucks.
Yes individual consumption matters, but there’s a very small group of individuals called billionaires that contribute 1000x more than you or I ever could. BP invented the idea of the individual carbon footprint.
Not to support Amazon, but those trucks on optimized delivery routes are likely better for the environment than individials each driving their own cars to box stores…
If only we had some nationalized way to deliver parcels on an optimized route…
Can’t do that. It’s profitable so it has to go to private companies.
The average person is the reason Amazon exists, so… That’s still on the average person.
This is what people miss in this false dichotomy. Businesses only exist because demand exists. Countries need to start passing unpopular things like Carbon Taxes to seal the deal against climate change by hitting consumer demand and raising prices
Oddly enough, without changing buying habits or consumer demand, I think the Amazon truck is a superior option.
- Instead of thousands of individual trips to the store for small things, a single vehicle delivers everything
- Instead of many hyper-local stores packed with things that may or may not eventually be sold, only things that have been purchased are shipped and transported
The trick, as you said, is to change consumer behavior and people balk at doing that, especially when it will cost more and income inequality hits harder than ever. Tax the rich, level the playing field, and the rest gets much easier.
Instead of many hyper-local stores packed with things that may or may not eventually be sold, only things that have been purchased are shipped and transported
Yeah but Amazon mixes up its inventory so cheap copies are right next to genuine stuff.
Be real mate. Thats not how it works.
Suppliers create the demand.
People werent demanding smartphones before smartphones got invented.
Most new things are shunned by most people until they slowly gain popularity and then the demand starts to exist.
You are stating the hypothesis of capitalism whilst ignoring the conclusion.
Suppliers do not create demand lol
Some of us were adults in 08 when lack of demand crippled the world
I was 21. I remember.
Im not saying demand doesnt fuel supply.
Im only saying supply can create demand.
Supply can create demand
Sure, with very specialized things like highways.
Not for most goods. In no way is that how money is spent within a company.
I guess the example i gave of folding phones bares no weight in this discussion?
A not very popular form of phone that very frw people asked for being created and despite minimal interest it is still gettig made. The galaxy fold 5 came out recently. And google just made a folding phone. Many other companys: Huawei, xiomi, oppo and more have made folding phones. And adverts for these devices are only just making their way to the main stream.
Perfect example of supply genrating demand as people are talkkng about them jow, and becoming interested. Sales of folding phones are increasing steadily.
But i guess thats just not how it works eh?
Phones, and tech in general, has always been an innovation arms race. If one company starts making foldable phones, you’ll see competition join in.
This isnt manufactured demand, it’s n industry defined by throwing gimmicks at the wall until one Is popular
See the abject failure of the Windows phone as a classic example of an entry failing.
Edit: came across this on my news scroll today: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/07/28/ford-embraces-hybrids-as-it-loses-billions-on-evs.html
But why double down on hybrids just as the industry is making a big push toward pure EVs?
“What the customer really likes is when we take a hybrid system that’s more efficient for certain duty cycles and then we add new capabilities because of the batteries,” Farley said.
I’m not demanding products which harm the environment made using methods which harm the environment. Businesses make the choice to produce those things instead of carbon-neutral environmentally friendly products, so they are more at fault than the individual who buys the thing. It’s extremely difficult for an individual to be able to uncover the environmental implications of everything you buy and do. The only real solution is to pass laws which properly account for the harmful externalities in the production cost, such as carbon tax. That will steer both businesses and consumers towards more sustainable decisions.
I also am demanding similar products, which is why capital has already shifted (and continues to shift) toward green/sustainables.
We don’t need laws to provide for externalities of consumption in most markets. Most markets are being changed by consumer demand.
What would be most effective is carbon pricing. Unfortunately, that is a non-starter with most voters as it essentially means price increases across the board (which would actually be more helpful during inflation, but people never see it that way)
Yeah, I wonder how big that capital shift actually is. Most companies are greenwashing, saying products are sustainable and carbon neutral when surprise, surprise, they are not. As a consumer you can’t even trust those products. As a small example you got H&M recently pulling back they Conscious line and lying about recyling clothes that actually ended up in landfills.
deleted by creator
Yeah capital doesn’t support green washing.
You should dig into it and learn more. It’s cool to see the market at work in such a big way.
I think that billionaires are some kinde of problem but megacorps (big 9, Nestle, cocacola, fashion industry) are much worst :(
deleted by creator
Companies sell to people though, who willingly buy from them unsustainable products. But I think it’s a bit much to expect people make this choice every day, I prefer at least for some things make a regulation. It’s like “normal” pollution, we do not expect people to figure out which company relies on less toxic leakage, why is CO2 pollution any different?
You existing is why those companies use that energy.
I agree that it’s BS to put the blame on the average person’s behavior.
But the blame is on us collectively.
We use a lot of energy.
Those companies are the reason that energy isn’t produced with cleaner alternatives like nuclear, wind, or solar
Billionaires and corporations lobby governments and donate to superPACs(legal bribery) to have them promote their business interests and protect their capital.
Infinite growth is not sustainable on a finite planet. The billionaires aren’t going to save us. Buying stuff is not going to save us. Neoliberalism and Capitalism is not going to save us.
either way the average joe is gonna need to do something cuz the billionaires wont. lets just kill them
you do realise that these companies do these things because customers buy them, right? If you didn’t buy stuff on amazon, there wouldn’t be any amazon trucks around.
you do realize that I don’t buy stuff from Amazon and there are still Amazon trucks around right?
deleted by creator
Myself and 50,000 other people could start walking everywhere and it very likely wouldn’t come close to offsetting the emissions of Amazon’s fleet of trucks.
Not if you keep ordering shit from amazon it won’t. It will prevent 50,000 people’s worth of transportation emissions, though.
Don’t sell yourself short. You’re more responsible for the situation than you want to admit.
there’s a very small group of individuals called billionaires that contribute 1000x more than you or I ever could.
Wrong. The top 0.1% pollute 10x as much (per capita) as the top 10% (excluding the top 0.1%). Source
BP invented the idea of the individual carbon footprint.
If the strongest argument against an idea is “the wrong people came up with it”, the idea is probably pretty good.
According to your source, the top 1% emit 50 tonnes of CO2/capita/yr. The top 0.1% emit 200 tonnes of CO2/capita/yr. That is still an insane increase the wealthier one becomes.
Not saying that one should not try to limit their emissions (we definitely should stop buying stuff from amazon/big companies, if not to limit emissions, at least to break their monopolies), but there is definitely some low hanging fruit in that top percentage (e.g. having 800 people limit emissions is going to be harder when you have the same effect by just limiting the 8 at the top).
Also you’re last sentence is quite hostile, BP definitely came up with it to avoid their responsibility and pivot it to other people. The idea might not be ‘bad’ per se, but if you do it so to avoid your own responsibility, it is definitely bad practice (which, again, is why each of us should try to limit our carbon emissions)
Also you’re last sentence is quite hostile, BP definitely came up with it to avoid their responsibility and pivot it to other people. The idea might not be ‘bad’ per se, but if you do it so to avoid your own responsibility, it is definitely bad practice (which, again, is why each of us should try to limit our carbon emissions)
Of course. By the same token, individuals trying to avoid their own responsibility by parroting “big oil invented the idea of a carbon footprint” is definitely bad practice.
Sure, which is why I mentioned (twice) that everyone should try and limit their emissions in my original comment.
What you however skipped in your reply is the fact that the richest 8 people limiting their emissions has the same effect as the 792 people beneath that limiting their emissions. From a perspective of ‘quick wins’ (which we sorely need), I am totally in favour of placing more responsibility on those with the highest emissions (without anyone neglecting their responsibility, so please don’t just point out one group as ‘responsible’ to pivot away the blame).
In the same vein, BP pivoting away the blame has about the same impact as thousands (millions?) of individuals pivoting away the blame, which is why they are (or at least should be) held to a higher standard.
What you however skipped in your reply is the fact that the richest 8 people limiting their emissions has the same effect as the 792 people beneath that limiting their emissions.
I skipped it because I agree. There’s nothing to debate on that point.
However, the point of my first reply was to highlight that this perspective is often exaggerated to paint the global middle class (the top 10% richest people on the planet, i.e. most people in western Europe and the anglosphere) as innocent victims when in fact they are also to blame. This is what I replied to:
The narrative that the average joe is to blame for this shit is so infuriating to me.
This sentiment is oft-repeated on this kind of post, and the implication that “average joe” is not responsible is not only wrong, but actively harmful.
you don’t know me buddy. I don’t use Amazon and I pretty much only drive to and from work. good fucking luck not giving Amazon money given that AWS hosts millions of companies websites.
/e ALSO top 0.1% isn’t a small enough group to address what I’m talking about. Try top 0.01%, that’s about where you’ll find billionaires.
Hate to be devils advocate here, but even if billionaires contribute 1000x each, there is just one of them for 1000x1000x1000x1000x people so in total their contribution does not matter. What matters is their business choices which favor unsustainable practies for billions of people, so eventually they have a huge effect, just not directly.
While true that total consumption is less than the rest of the population, billionaires have a very large influence and people try to mimic them. If they don’t set an example and still fly everywhere in a private jet, those 1000x1000x1000x1000x people will also say f it, if a billionaire can’t do it, I certainly can’t.
If we are talking about giving an example, while I agree in part, I also find there are people more popular and influential than billonaires. Half of the top 10 richest people are not really public personas at least from where I stand. Conversely, you do not need to be billionaire to produce 10000x CO2, you need some money but not that much. These people need to be also in attention focus. Even just middle upper class who like to fly a lot, the difference it makes is huge. Billionaires do their own part, but through ownership of large companies and their relation to customers, I think is more important way in which they make a difference.
wouldn’t come close to offsetting the emissions of Amazon’s fleet of trucks.
Or Amazon Dr. Evil’s private jets and rockets…
If you want to kill BP, stop buying oil. The Amazon fleet is about 70,000 vehicles and they’re transitioning to electric right now.
Consumers drive markets. Mega corporations aren’t polluting for the fun of it. They do it because it’s a byproduct of them taking our money. Stop giving them money and they stop polluting. Why else would they stop?
The Amazon fleet is about 70,000 vehicles and they’re transitioning to electric right now.
They are not doing this because of the goodness of their heart. They are doing it because of $$$$. Gas costs more, so it’s more economical to switch to electric.
Rest assured, if there are other places where it’s more economical to strip mine the environment and increase the rate of climate change, they will switch to that cheaper method in a heartbeat, if they aren’t already doing so.
That is my entire point. Companies only do things that get them money.
Consumers drive markets, companies follow markets. Change how you buy, companies change how they pollute.
That’s not your point because you’re missing a critical detail: Companies can make a single choice to make very large changes, but your single choice doesn’t mean shit, especially if you’re in a minority. It’s just a way to make yourself feel smug and righteous among your peers.
Individual actions only have merit when there are large majorities driving them, pushing powerful groups with enough force to act.
How sad life must be for you to be so powerless to affect even your own actions. I’m sorry
“Voting with your dollar” is bullshit. Just stop buying oil? Ok, let me go to the no oil store and buy a new car that doesn’t run on gas and isn’t made with any plastic. Let me spend my entire 5 dollars worth of disposable income to buy a new vehicle. And then take that vehicle to the store that has 0 petroleum products. No cans lined with PFAS, no plastic bags, no plastic packaging, no products made entirely of plastic. Never fly again in your life, or take the bus. Don’t you even think about eating out again. Live life as a hermit, make your own goods, provide your own services and maintinence to yourself to ensure an oil free existence. Better start soon too, the planets only getting hotter. Rinse and repeat x8,000,000,000.
Markets are driven by capital. Those with the most capital have the greatest influence. Your pittance of a wage isn’t going to change a damn thing. 10% of the global population has 52% of the purchasing power. Even if the other 90% of us all united together at once, about a single thing, we still wouldn’t have the purchasing power to overwhelm them. You can’t reform a system that’s made to perpetuate consumption and pollution. It’s cheaper to pollute by design. Do you think it’s a coincidence that bills meant to make polluting more expensive either don’t get passed or are so rife with loopholes they’re effectively useless? Pull your head out of your ass. If there was ever a time this shit show could be reformed, it’s long gone.
Just stop buying oil? Ok, let me go to the no oil store and buy a new car that doesn’t run on gas
You mean an electric car?
There are options for consumers. Some of them cost more right now, others are an investment that pay off later. Buy those and not the polluting option and low and behold the markets change. Why do you think oil companies are starting to diversify more
What’s the trim in the electric car made of? How about the insulation around the wires? The clear coat on the paint? The lamination layer in the glass? What about the headlights and tail lights? The bumper covers? The logo and model letters? How was it delivered to the dealership for you to buy? You think there wasn’t any oil consumed in the mining and refining of the non petroleum materials that constitute the rest of the vehicle? You said stop buying oil. Not stop using gasoline.
Ok, stop buying gasoline then. Because the vast majority of oil is used for fuels. Only a small percentage is used for plastics, like less than 1%. 50% is used for gasoline alone.
Simpler? Imagine if we could reduce oil GHGs by 50%. Just by changing the way consumers drive.
Global production of oil per day is about 90 million barrls. If we use your 50% for gasoline production that’s 45 million barrels. Or 16.425 billion per year. 3.2 billion barrels.) are used annually in the US. Or 19.45% of the global supply of gasoline. About 76% of that is used by individuals. And that’s a generous estimate. The average mpg of a car on the road in the US is 36. The average American drives 13.5k miles per year. Leading to an roughly average annual consumption of 365 gallons per driver per year. 83% of Americans drive frequently. Leaving an annual consumption of about 2.46 billion barrels per year for private citizens gasoline consumption. Or 14.9% of global gas consumption. And again that’s being generous on the average consumption per citizen. I couldn’t find any real numbers on the actual amount of gas consumed by individuals for individual needs in the US.
Also, globally, 45% of oil is used for gasoline. 29% for diesel and the remaining 26% are used for plastic and other products. So my percentage of the us’ consumption per year, and in return the average citizen is exaggerated by a decent margin. That’s not to mention the fact that the majority of the US’ industry runs on diesel. So if we’re going by petroleum fuels, the impact of the average US citizens gas consumption is even lower. You’re trying to eliminate 75% of 19% of 45%, or 6.4% of the total problem by switching to electric. And, again, that’s being generous.
Institutional problems CANNOT be changed by individual action. We need a lot more than 6.4% of pollution to stop if we even have a shot at unfucking ourselves. The answer to overconsumption isn’t more consumption
E: let’s also consider the fact that the majority of people with a car can’t afford to buy an electric car. What are they supposed to do? Stop going to work? Stop buying groceries? Walk miles for every errand? We can’t electric car our way out of catastrophe
remaining 26% are used for plastic and other products.
I don’t think you read your source. The little figure of the oil drum shows 6/45 gallons goes to other products, including some to pladtics. That’s 13% not 26. And it’s wrong to say all of that is plastic is hilariously wrong.
You could have saved yourself all that time and math and gone to a single source about how much GHGs come from domestic drivingbin the US. Here it is
The transportation sector is one of the largest contributors to anthropogenic U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
transportation accounted for the largest portion (29%) of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2021.
On-Road Vehicles account for 1,496.4 Tg CO2 equivalent
But maybe you’re thinking that the money Americans spend on gas in a year is piddly. After all it’s only $562 Billion a year. Pocket change for BP, right?
So do you think that eliminating that many tonnes of CO2 and that many barrels of oil from companies bottom line would have an impact? Maybe just a little itsy Bitsy tiny bit?
Or are you just going to keep pretending that consumer choices don’t drive markets and climate change.
The oil in your plastics for your car aren’t being burned, so they don’t contribute nearly as much as gasoline and diesel fuels do towards climate change.
Today is completely impossible to eliminate plastics from the global economy, so ranting about plastic use making it impossible to stop climate change is a red herring.
Only about 10% of oil goes into plastic. We can also make bioplastics out of corn and other agricultural products.
The oil to make that plastic still needs to be pumped out of the ground, refined, and manufactured into an end product. Leaving a trail of carbon emissions and other pollution along the way. It doesn’t just come out of the ground shaped into whatever you want it to be. Bioplastics made from corn are also very resource intensive to produce. While a better option, they’re not perfect either. It’s really not a red herring. Just because it isn’t polluting as an end product doesn’t mean they’re clean. And with things like toxic fumes from off gassing and the products from plastic degradation having long term consequences, it’s not like they just stop being bad as finished products either.
Regulations are the only thing that can enforce corporations to do the right thing every time. Free market might make them do it every now and then.
Example: do you want free market to (maybe) decide on use of asbestos and lead in fuel or regulations against them right away?
You do realize that leaded gas came about because of market pressure right? That people had a choice at the pumps to choose from leaded or unleaded?
While true that they’re not polluting for fun, many corporations will try to avoid any anti-pollution measure that will lose them money. To the point where they spend billions of dollars every year to lobby governements, enviromental protection organizations, and drag out regulations with lawsuits. Because in the long run it’s usually worth it for them to pollute, as long as the investors see enough profits in the short term.
Of course they will. Corporations do not care. They will only do things that make them money. Either because governments threaten to take away their money. Or because markets change and they’re no longer making money so they have to change.
We have seen this with so so so many industries over the centuries. Consumers change behaviours and businesses move to fit their needs. If everyone here started eating less meat there would be more investment in plant based ideas. Because they don’t care about what the impacts of their company are. They care what you and I are buying.
This is just the same buck-passing that BP was doing.
You are personally responsible for your own contribution.
You are doubly responsible for giving money to BP or Chevron.
You have control over some things in your life. If you choose to live like the average american driving everywhere, eating meat, and inefficiently climate controlling a building that is far bigger than needed and poorly insulated, then you are choosing to emit an amount of CO2 that will contribute to several deaths.
You are also directly giving the oil, gas, and meat industries the resources to kill many more.
Just because BP passed the buck, doesn’t exonerate you.
As I said above, you people don’t know me. It’s absolutely not the same as BP because I don’t make billions off of poisoning the planet. Nor have I stifled alternative energy for a hundred years.
Kill rich people.
Try shipping vessels. I think I read that 7 of them are responsible for an incredible high percentage of all emissions or something
Sulfate emissions.
Which are bad, but are not CO2 emissions.
The entire shipping industry is a small fraction of the US’s automobile emissions.
The rule of thumb I was taught many years ago in operations management class was that shipborne cargo freight, on a TEU basis, uses less fuel to get from Hong Kong to Los Angeles as it did to deliver that freight to the store in North America. It’s 100x less impactful in terms of CO2 output as trucking.
120k years ago was about the end of the Eemian interglacial period, which was a significantly warm period.
How do they estimate temps so long ago? What data do they use?
They have various methods. One of the common ones is analyzing ice core samples. The ice sheets are accumulated over the years so each layer on ice sheets is from a certain historical period (much like tree trunks.) By analyzing the chemical status of the ice core on each layer, they can extract data, such as temperature, about a certain period.
There is currently war in Europe, how bad is itfor climate change?
Well…it’s not good. That’s for sure.
I can not object to fact that the war not good, but the impact on emissions is not so simple. There was a decrease in all kinds of activities in Ukraine, reducing consumption. Also a lot less fossil fuels are burned, and solar power is found to be more resilent to attacks due to it’s distributed nature. However, I suspect, overall it is still bad for the climate change.
deleted by creator
I, too, agree with the scientists that we’re all well and truly fucked.
This month is the planet’s hottest on record so far.
I feel I’ve seen this title-comment combination before.
I mean yeah, we can’t measure future temperatures.
We know it will get hotter, but still.
This feels like people opining about mass shootings.
Yes it’s a problem. No one cares enough to vote differently in order to change it, so there’s nothing we can do but fend for ourselves.
This assumes voting changes anything.
If it didn’t, Republicans wouldn’t try so hard to take it away.
They do that so they could get more votes for themselves. That’s about the amount of change you do get: coke or pepsi.
Plenty people care enough to vote. Plenty of people also work very hard (and have been doing so for long before you or I were around) to disenfranchise and prevent the votes of those exact people.
Plenty people care enough to vote.
Yeah, problem is they’re voting for people actively making the crisis worse or, through inaction, doing nothing meaningful to stop it.
I can feel it
the best things as an individual you can do to fight climate change:
-
walk everywhere or catch public transport. Don’t drive.
-
Go vegan
-
Don’t have kids
Your first suggestion is not possible for a significant percentage of people, from a US perspective. The infrastructure is not there for public transport. Walking to your job everyday is a foolish suggestion, for anyone not within a reasonable mileage of their home.
I’m 18 and will never want kids for moral reasons, it’s cruel to bring children into a world that is doomed. If I were to want kids I’d adopt.
Yup. Adoption is the only way I’d have a kid, but I can barely look after myself, so it wouldn’t be fair to a kid to put that on them.
- Remember that no matter what you do, as long as you don’t try to stop corporate polluting, you might as well just be doing it for morality, not for the planet’s biodiversity.
Just vote and protest.
No matter how much corporations and governments want us to believe that we’re at fault, our contribution to the problem is negligent in comparison with oil companies and huge manufacturers. You can’t tell someone not to have kids without even mentioning the real problem out there.
It’s sad how quick you’re being downvoted. The attitude online is such a defeatist, we can’t do anything vibe. Give them an enemy to blame and they’ll happily grumble about how powerless they are and how unfair it all is, tacitly giving themselves excuses not to change their own behaviours.
Having done a LOT of vegan activism over the years, there’s one thing that always sticks out. People don’t think they have any power to do anything about injustices. Not just animal injustices, but anything. At all. People will just roll over and take it up the arse pipe. Regardless how badly they’re being treated, and what is being done to them. People are so defeatist. It’s sad. as individuals, we have a lot of power when done collectively.
The hard part is assembling the collective. This fact is exploited and even actively made more difficult by the rich.
Actually the best things you can do are
1: join a climate lobbying group (I joined this non-partisan group : https://citizensclimatelobby.org/)
2: contact your congressperson and tell them you support carbon tax and dividend
3: contact your congressperson and tell them you support raising taxes to subsidize green investment and end fossil fuel subsidies
4: vote. Locally and federally and often. Here’s why local matters: https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/i-team/it-reminds-me-of-the-hunger-games-rural-residents-complain-about-solar-farm-where-cincinnati-buys-power
Any “you stuff” is way after the above in terms of efficacy.
How about stopping other individual from doing some things? Else this strategy is self-defeating, those survive who will not follow it. Writing a comment about it actually counts for conviencing others, but should this fact be one of the points?
-
I wonder what next year will be like
“The hottest on record”
I’m sure this will spur society to prioritise the future viability of our species survival and the state of the environment over short term quarterly profits right? … right?
This and other jokes you can tell yourself
People won’t care until it’s in their backyard. A couple of ads from BP and they’ll blame themselves a bit then start “recycling” their water bottles not knowing that recycling is bullshit.
The problem is, it’s already in our backyards. From record breaking forest fires, to record breaking heat, and record breaking droughts…
Every republican I’ve ever talked to says, “this is a normal climate cycle, and it happens throughout history”. It is like they were all taught the same thing.
most of australia’s recycling ends up in Indonesia being melted down and thus polluting the environment anyway.
US trash used to go China, but now they don’t take it anymore, so I don’t know what landfill they threw it in
hey, but how far does your backyard go? Don’t you feel at least for your city, your country? Why not something bigger?
It goes as far as their backyard goes. There is a lot of “me me” in this world, my friend
There is also “us” which is a larger “me”. Large problem like unintentional geoengineering needs large “us” to control and reverse. There are political implications of this kind of “us”.
Better copy this comment in preparation to paste next year when we hit the hottest year again. May just create a bot myself to do so. I mean one of these days humanity will take it serious right???
Nope, they’ll just crank the AC even higher and get back to watching some “neckflis”.
Most companies do not optimize to exist long term. Another, longer lasting, entity needs to take charge of this. Like humanity itself, except it needs some organization, reflecting legitimate consenus. The problem is that it needs to be enforcable, and world govenment with punitive powers is not an unproblematic idea.
I think one big problem is that Earth has become too small, but this fact and it’s implications did not quite get absorbed. People act on in instinctively by favoring space exploration, but it’s pursued by most adventurous ones, and not in unproblematic ways.
See you next year guys for a new record!
My son is 8 years old. Every summer when he is drenched in sweat, I tell him to enjoy his coolest summer.
I hope things turn around.
At least in Europe it’s ok, golfstream will shut down and we’ll be under a glacier. Climate change is not just warming, it’s volatility.
Please stop filling your son with existential dread, he’s far too young. Sometimes things are better left unsaid, it’s not like he has any polluting to stop.
Existential dread is the correct emotional response to inevitable, existential danger.
Feeling safe for the sake of feeling safe is just a comfortable delusion.
Yeah, not for an 8 year old though
