|
Cranappleberry posted:I'm sorry you're mad about that guy but you could stop using heat and electricity because of the CO2 released from your personal use. Otherwise you're a hypocrite for calling that guy out but not making small sacrifices that will one day change nothing. "Using heat and electricity" at the rate necessary to sustain healthy life is not optional, and using heat and electricity to bring a moderate degree of comfort actually is negligible compared to flying. Flying across the world is optional, decadent, and grotesquely damaging to the environment both of today and that of future generations. Paradoxish posted:You're missing my point by a pretty wide margin. "You, as an individual living in a first world nation", have a very high impact on and responsibility for climate change, particulary if you partake in more than average high-emission activities, for the reasons that I gave above. Do you not appreciate that if you reject one individual's contribution to climate change then you must reject every individual's contribution? (that means EVERYONE) Regulatory change and improved public transport and so on affect 7.3 billion individuals; for each individual, the change from deciding to fly to deciding not to fly would be greater than the per capita effect of an improvement that promoted change from driving to using public tranport (for example) - flying is just so catastrophically polluting. (And can't you see that your examples of "regulatory change" and "expanded public transport" have beneficial effects [or less-damaging effects] on a per capita basis? An individual choosing to use public transport is the same as it being mandated, and increased voluntary public transport use induces investment in public transport, just like opting out of flying reduces provision of flights) Fortunately, only the richest people in the world can afford to fly - if as many people regularly flew as regularly drive or ride a scooter/motorbike, then we would be in a substantially worse state than we already are. Ed: missed a word
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
Sounds like your comfort as a first worlder is more important than the environment. You're mad and berating someone for not 100% living up to words they said on the internet as if it were some sort of contract. I guess what I'm trying to say here is, you're Arkane levels of dumb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:Sounds like your comfort as a first worlder is more important than the environment. I produce less CO2e than the average person in the world, let alone the average first-worlder, thanks to rejecting first-world comforts such as heating in my room, animal products, driving/motorbike/scooter, flying (obviously), and non-local produce. I'm berating someone for being hypocritical to a high degree, not because they said they would give up smoking for Lent but broke after a week.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I think you underestimate the need for these proofs of concepts. Does a specific Tesla do poo poo for the climate? No. But would large scale battery production driving down battery costs have a positive impact on climate? Yes and you can't get the factory built without someone buying the (potentially lovely) cars first. The problem here is that EVs are generally a wash (or at worst, a negative) if we can't also clean up our grid. They're great in countries that already rely heavily on renewable or nuclear, but everywhere else they have a similar footprint to decent ICE vehicles. A 10-20% improvement in personal transportation emissions over the next few decades isn't even close to being enough. It's pretty much a prerequisite that we stop burning coal for EVs to be worthwhile, and if we can do that then we've already solved climate change. If anything, I'd argue EVs are a great example of why market/consumer solutions are destined to fail and have been failing for decades.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The problem here is that EVs are generally a wash (or at worst, a negative) if we can't also clean up our grid. They're great in countries that already rely heavily on renewable or nuclear, but everywhere else they have a similar footprint to decent ICE vehicles. A 10-20% improvement in personal transportation emissions over the next few decades isn't even close to being enough. It's pretty much a prerequisite that we stop burning coal for EVs to be worthwhile, and if we can do that then we've already solved climate change. If anything, I'd argue EVs are a great example of why market/consumer solutions are destined to fail and have been failing for decades. But my point wasn't that EVs are good, but that large scale battery production will be. Yes, we have to clean up our grid too, but that's a vastly easier task due to the centralization involved, versus the problem of transportation fuels. If Obama's Clean Power Plan is allowed to go into action that's a large chunk of cleaning up our grid right there. The more people we have that are adapting to lower carbon intensity lifestyles now, the faster the overall culture and institutions will change. So yes, it actually is helpful to have someone pick a lower carbon vacation now (but still not as helpful as advocacy).
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:I produce less CO2e than the average person in the world, let alone the average first-worlder, thanks to rejecting first-world comforts such as heating in my room, animal products, driving/motorbike/scooter, flying (obviously), and non-local produce. Ah, but did you sterilize yourself as well?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:I produce less CO2e than the average person in the world, let alone the average first-worlder, thanks to rejecting first-world comforts such as heating in my room, animal products, driving/motorbike/scooter, flying (obviously), and non-local produce. Thanks for showing up to gloat. Would you consider smugging it up in a thread (ON THE INTERNET WHICH USES ELECTRICITY OMG) "leading by example" or is it strictly that giving up first world comforts leaves you with huffing your own farts for entertainment? Also that plane is flying with or without a given person on it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:I produce less CO2e than the average person in the world, let alone the average first-worlder, thanks to rejecting first-world comforts such as heating in my room, animal products, driving/motorbike/scooter, flying (obviously), and non-local produce. You must be a hit at parties. For content though your locally sourced food might not be, and probably isn't, a smaller carbon impact than buying it from Walmart
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
No no. He calculated it using a C02e calculator. This shows that he is comfortably superior to all other people who output more C02 than he does. Never you mind that his individual C02 output, high or low, is so negligible that if 100,000 people adopted his lifestyle it wouldn't defray the emissions from, much less the environmental impact of, a single petrochemical plant. This is not to say don't be environmentally conscious, but if you seriously believe your individual carbon footprint matters, then you are as delusional as climate change deniers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:
I always find this attitude interesting because it usually gets followed up with 'but the system is too large and inert to realistically change in the near future', so basically the best idea is to dehumanize yourself and face the bloodshed. Trabisnikof posted:Yeah but how many flights can I make if I refuse to have 20 kids? That's a lot of prevented emissions right there! Are you still salty about this? khwarezm fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Apr 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
There are absolutely changes that can be made to mitigate climate change and environmental damage, even at this late stage. However, most of these changes have to occur on a large scale. Individual attitudes and cultural attitudes can definitely make a difference but if you're looking at individual contributions to CO2 output, you're missing the forest for dirt under the trees. An individual is the end-user and does not control most of their own carbon footprint or, assuming they do, anywhere near a statistically significant amount of greenhouse gas production. In this case we have a person who wants to shame other people who want to travel and be green. For a variety of reasons that is ridiculous. To pretend to be superior, or indeed, not hypocritical because of contributions that amount to a number so close to zero that no one would make the reasonable distinction, is the definition of frivolous bimbo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:There are absolutely changes that can be made to mitigate climate change and environmental damage, even at this late stage. However, most of these changes have to occur on a large scale. This is true, and the point that many ~grassroots~ environmentalists and activists miss. Climate change is a tragedy of the commons type situation, the people using those commons are more than you could feasibly argue with on an individual basis (you know, all seven billion of them), and the smaller scale success stories in fixing this type of scenario generally involve larger-scale policy decisions that turn openly accessible commons into a resource with restricted access. Even the most heartwarming "plucky little locals win against heartless multinational company that literally kicked your puppy"-stories, e.g. some cases where overfishing got fixed and replaced by more sustainable fisheries management, involve broader policy decisions, just with an additional step of "let's have a chat with the locals about how they can see themselves stop breaking things without making them think you're taking their stuff away".
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 08:01
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Cranappleberry posted:There are absolutely changes that can be made to mitigate climate change and environmental damage, even at this late stage. However, most of these changes have to occur on a large scale. I can tentatively agree that individual choice and sacrifice matters to the whole of global warming, relating to the signal effect. If adoption of environmental austerity measures by the individual creates a culture of environmental conciousness, ushers in the public perception that everyone must contribute to combat climate change, which then leads to sweeping political/systemic/industrial reform, I will agree that this will have an effect. If it was massively frowned upon socially to drive huge inefficcient vehicles, pollute, use non-renewable energy or heating a house with anything but sustainable biomatter and eating meat, then sure, I can see that having an effect on the whole picture. But it takes one coal-rolling rear end in a top hat to negate an entire neighborhood full of effort, and a single years continued output from a coal plant to eradicate the gain from hundreds upon thousands of neighborhoods. I'll accept the signal effect, but individual contributions and sacrifices don't matter to the big picture even all of them together. As an aside, reverting to third world living conditions is a non-starter no matter which way you slice it, so there's a definite cap on these individual sacrifices too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 10:15
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:Never you mind that his individual C02 output, high or low, is so negligible that if 100,000 people adopted his lifestyle it wouldn't defray the emissions from, much less the environmental impact of, a single petrochemical plant. How can you (and the others taking your position on this) be so ignorant and pig-headed? How many people does "a single petrochemical plant" serve with its products, and what is the amount of carbon that is attributable to each person for what they take from that plant? If you would stop and think for a moment (make sure your mommy takes a video of this moment, to preserve the memory of your first time), you would see that this superficially "undefrayable" petrochemical plant does not exist in isolation, but serves the demands of, oh, in the order of 100,000 INDIVIDUALS. If individuals reduce their use of petrochemicals, then petrochemicals plants get SHUT DOWN. This doesn't happen in practice, because global demand is increasing, but this is because of people flying MORE and consuming more, rather than the suggested "flying less" and "not driving an SUV". If you say "well, MY effect on the atmosphere is negligible", you are pushing the responsibility for your selfishness onto other people. Either you grant everyone freedom from responsibility and have nowhere to lay the blame for climate change, or you grow up and accept that it's YOUR fault that <bad thing> is occurring when YOU are one of the leading contributors to it. People crying about my pertinent and accurate response to a specific accusation about my CO2e production posted:Waah wahh. I have no actual rebuttal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 11:05
|
|
|
quote:If individuals reduce their use of petrochemicals, then petrochemicals plants get SHUT DOWN. Or prices go down and usage increases to compensate. The responsibility is collective, your individual efforts are just pissing in the wind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Either you grant everyone freedom from responsibility and have nowhere to lay the blame for climate change, or you grow up and accept that it's YOUR fault that <bad thing> is occurring when YOU are one of the leading contributors to it. Or you work to get rules made that solve the problem and also apply to you. Sorry you hadn't figured this one out. You sound like those idiots saying "well why doesn't Warren Buffet just donate his money all to the government"
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:How can you (and the others taking your position on this) be so ignorant and pig-headed? Have you, or have you not sterilized yourself? If not, why not?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:Have you, or have you not sterilized yourself? If not, why not? I feel like this is a bad faith argument because you can clearly tell from his/her posts that they are not going to be procreating anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
Dubstep Jesus posted:Or prices go down and usage increases to compensate. Yup, as I said, that plane is flying with or without a given person on it. Also, who is (anyone really) this marmot dude to judge individuals' efforts? The poster he's been railing about might be a leading climate activist, or cultivate a piece of land planted for carbon sequestration, or have forced his HOA to mandate installing solar panels, etc. etc. The logical conclusion of his argument will be eventually telling people in developing countries that they can't do X because sorry now that we've been loving the planet for a good three centuries you can't participate in the fun now that you've finally scraped together the wealth to do so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
Well... I mean, billions will die, so whether it's fair or not isn't really important.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:No, this is incorrect. If individuals opt not to fly or to eat meat or whatever, then demand is reduced and the service or product will be less profitable; YOUR single influence, as one person, is negligible, but the behavior of a population that is made of individuals does influence outcomes. If you hadn't noticed, all of the individuals in the world make up such a population, so the decisions of individuals in the world do have a cumulative effect on outcomes. Go gently caress yourself, I'm not going to stop travelling because you want me to live in a tent and eat only veggies I grow in my garden. I'm not having a child, which basically offsets every single other thing I do in my life that contributes to carbon emissions. I also work in climate advocacy, putting pressure on states and the fed to improve every measure to combat increased climate change. I'm in the clear, gently caress you. e: jesus I went back and ready all of your subsequent replies and you sound like a quite the insufferable little poo poo. How are u fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Apr 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
How are u posted:Go gently caress yourself, I'm not going to stop travelling because you want me to live in a tent and eat only veggies I grow in my garden. I'm not having a child, which basically offsets every single other thing I do in my life that contributes to carbon emissions. I also work in climate advocacy, putting pressure on states and the fed to improve every measure to combat increased climate change. I'm in the clear, gently caress you. I didn't realize not having children created negative emissions, that's cool! How many tons of CO2 did your non-child sequester if you're so sure it counteracts all the emissions in your life?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Despite our universal agreement that: *Climate change is real *It is caused by anthropogenic emissions *Emissions must be reduced it seems that most people in this discussion will not accept responsibility for their own pollution. Some people are suggesting that legislation and government action are the answer [they are part of the answer], but if you're happy for your emissions and those of others to be forcibly curtailed by legislation and government action, what's the problem with accepting your responsibilities and cutting your emissions without the government forcing you to? (it's selfishness) How are u posted:Go gently caress yourself, I'm not going to stop travelling because you want me to live in a tent and eat only veggies I grow in my garden. I'm not having a child, which basically offsets every single other thing I do in my life that contributes to carbon emissions. I also work in climate advocacy, putting pressure on states and the fed to improve every measure to combat increased climate change. I'm in the clear, gently caress you. You work in climate advocacy yet you still fly around the world and think that not having a child offsets your own emissions* - yeah, that's hypocrisy and ignorance all smashed together. You must feel dizzy from the cognitive dissonance. *So we don't need to have this argument again, the decision to have a child results in a massive increase in the emissions that you are responsible for, while the decision to not have a child is carbon neutral. Dubstep Jesus posted:Or prices go down and usage increases to compensate. The changing parameter is the reduction of flying - if individuals fly less, then usage cannot increase. Salt Fish posted:I feel like this is a bad faith argument because you can clearly tell from his/her posts that they are not going to be procreating anytime soon. When I split up with my last girlfriend, one of the reasons was her insistence on having children. No, I am not going to be procreating anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
How are u posted:I'm not having a child, which basically offsets every single other thing I do in my life that contributes to carbon emissions. I also work in climate advocacy, putting pressure on states and the fed to improve every measure to combat increased climate change. I'm in the clear, gently caress you. Sorry, but it doesn't work like this. You sound like the guy trying to lose weight 'rewarding' themselves with a cake every time they go jogging for twenty minutes and then confused as to why he can't keep off the pounds?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
For every plane ticket you don't buy, I'm gonna buy two! Hell yeah!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Considering there are still people out there rolling coal and nobody, let alone any government, is realistically going to give a poo poo or take any meaningful action towards mitigating climate change we can just settle with agreeing that sanctimony about oneness with Gaia gets some people's rocks off more than a vacation to Australia and vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Potential BFF posted:Considering there are still people out there rolling coal and nobody, let alone any government, is realistically going to give a poo poo or take any meaningful action towards mitigating climate change we can just settle with agreeing that sanctimony about oneness with Gaia gets some people's rocks off more than a vacation to Australia and vice versa. You realize "rolling coal" is tiny increase in climate related emissions right? It's mostly local air pollutants and doesn't actually involve using coal. Individual action can actually offset all the coal rollers in the world. Also I'm pretty sure the Clean Power Plan, the Paris Agreement, the US-China climate deal and the new CAFE standards are all meaningful. Oh ya the 8th largest economy in the world implemented what is now the best cap and trade system, that seems meaningful to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You realize "rolling coal" is tiny increase in climate related emissions right? It's mostly local air pollutants and doesn't actually involve using coal. Individual action can actually offset all the coal rollers in the world. Its okay, as someone who builds diesels for fun: Rolling coal is slowly killing their motor and they will suffer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You realize "rolling coal" is tiny increase in climate related emissions right? It's mostly local air pollutants and doesn't actually involve using coal. Individual action can actually offset all the coal rollers in the world. It's more the mindset of the people purposefully tweaking (wrecking) their engines than the immediate environmental effects of blasting out a bunch of soot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:
Jesus Christ. What, do you like live in a yurt in Portland and never travel further than you can ride your bicycle or something? Get off your high horse you sanctimonious twat. You are part of the reason people have lovely stereotypes about the climate movement and people who are concerned about climate change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:How ironic. Nice meltdown.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
How are u posted:Jesus Christ. What, do you like live in a yurt in Portland and never travel further than you can ride your bicycle or something? Get off your high horse you sanctimonious twat. You are part of the reason people have lovely stereotypes about the climate movement and people who are concerned about climate change. Okay to be fair; most of those things you're describing are cool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Potential BFF posted:It's more the mindset of the people purposefully tweaking (wrecking) their engines than the immediate environmental effects of blasting out a bunch of soot. Yeah but that exists in literally every single sphere of social norm. If anything the fact that someone is rolling coal means you have a greater obligation to lead by example as a social counter balance. Especially considering the multiplicative advantage of leading by example when you engage in advocacy. It's a lot easier to ask someone to mandate something if you are a living embodiment of your mandate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
The social capital accrued in leading by example is lost when the exemplar of virtue becomes a schmuck about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yeah but that exists in literally every single sphere of social norm. If anything the fact that someone is rolling coal means you have a greater obligation to lead by example as a social counter balance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Martian posted:Yeah, I mean who would listen to, oh I don't know, a Greenpeace executive who commutes by plane? That would be crazy. Greenpeace, noted for being a bunch of arrogant hypocrites.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Potential BFF posted:The social capital accrued in leading by example is lost when the exemplar of virtue becomes a schmuck about it. Very very true. Martian posted:Yeah, I mean who would listen to, oh I don't know, a Greenpeace executive Ftfy  Nah I mean green peace isn't exactly entirely bad, they just often do things that make all environmentalists look bad. Like damaging ancient pictographs or using sexy young people to trick idiots into reoccurring subscriptions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Nah I mean green peace isn't exactly entirely bad, they just often do things that make all environmentalists look bad. Like damaging ancient pictographs or using sexy young people to trick idiots into reoccurring subscriptions. Greenpeace is bad. Period. For the little good they do, they tend to outweigh it with bad science, fear-mongering, and appeals to emotion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Greenpeace is bad. Period. For the little good they do, they tend to outweigh it with bad science, fear-mongering, and appeals to emotion. Don't blame Greenpeace for using modern marketing tactics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:If it was massively frowned upon socially to drive huge inefficcient vehicles, pollute, use non-renewable energy or heating a house with anything but sustainable biomatter and eating meat, then sure, I can see that having an effect on the whole picture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 19:51
|
|