221–230 of 591 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So we should just tank our own economy while being unable to do anything about our neighbors? Yes.
You seem smart.
It's odd how everytime somebody mentions slashing oil production by 50 or 75%, people are immediately up in arms. Same for red meat or cheap air travel. Western rich countries have too many really spoiled consumers. It's weird to say, but we should crash the economy if it can slow down climate change. I mean there are plenty people in other parts of the world who don't have such a high standard of living, and it's no…
You realize that would cause countless death _today_ if you don’t replace the oil with something else? People will starve, become homeless, and maybe anarchy will reign. Not just in the developed world but globally.
The irony of this comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there are plenty people in other parts of the world who don't have such a high standard of living, and it's not that big of a problem. Go live like that for 6 months and get back to us: food insecurity, inadequate healthcare, and few civil services or safety net. Those other countries are not net zero pollution either. You wanna crash the economy? How then will we develop the innovations to fix this problem? Can't…
I upvoted you, but IMO: - private cars and their usage are too cheap - air travel is too cheap - producing garbage is to cheap - politics is top centered around providing infinte fuel for "growth" instead of distributing resources rationally Yes, this is a political opinion. The stunt many people do is pretending that climate denialism and politics centered on fueling growth are not a political opinion but "rational"…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what about all the countries that won’t do anything regardless? So we should just tank our own economy while being unable to do anything about our neighbors? It won’t take tanking the economy, it would take world war 3.
It's all making sense now, only WW3 can save us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you think will happen if the temperatures keep rising, the oceans keep rising, and currently livable areas of land that hold billions of people become inhabitable?
Thanos is that you? Wanting to kill people now, to hopefully save the environment in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because eating less meat, stop taking the plane, reducing our consumption level, replacing cars with bikes and trains and other stuff like that seems radical to you ?
> replacing cars with bikes and trains 1. What if you are disabled and have no train connectivity? 2. What about workers who need to travel by car to build trains? What about support workers who help those workers? And so on? See what happens if we stop virtue signaling and think for a few more seconds? Please stop with this zero-order thinking and spend a few seconds thinking of first-order and second-order effects…
Pandemic happened -> Europe went to lockdown -> Restaurants, hotels closed, weddings cancelled -> a drop of flower sales -> Kenyan flower growers suddenly find themselves out of work and out of income (plane-loads of flowers get flown everyday from Africa, M. East and S. America to Europe)
Yeah it was probably okay sailing for rich countries that can conjure up debt and give their citizens some relief, but how about for the poorer countries? India had a lockdown and day-wagers had to walk thousands of kilometers home, and the PM's response seemed to be "Not my problem!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look around. Everyone on earth wants to maintain a standard of living. Governments are toppled over this. And yet it is the largest economy that is objectively slowing its share of contributed emissions. And it’s the largest exhibit that is helping to drive the innovation needed to solve this problem, alongside incredible people from all parts of the globe. I wish we weren’t dealing with this. I wish there had been a…
I'm not disagreeing with your conclusions... >And yet it is the largest economy that is objectively slowing its share of contributed emissions. These largest economy's also contributed the most over their history, which seems reasonable grounds for contributing more and helping other economies come up to that standard of living w/o making the same contributions
Simultaneously, the developed world should partner with China to stoke uptake of EVs globally, and rapidly destroy the market for fossil powered mobility (although there is strong evidence we're rapidly approaching a tipping point wrt EV sales [1]).
TLDR War time effort without the war.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-28/electric-... | https://archive.ph/jakiU
It's odd how everytime somebody mentions slashing oil production by 50 or 75%, people are immediately up in arms. Same for red meat or cheap air travel. Western rich countries have too many really spoiled consumers. It's weird to say, but we should crash the economy if it can slow down climate change. I mean there are plenty people in other parts of the world who don't have such a high standard of living, and it's no…
If global warming is in fact a conspiracy made up by foreign actors to destabilize the west, man, have they got you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They may never explicitly admit this, but proponents of "just stop using oil" do intend the mass death outcome. Of course, they have nothing but Good Intentions, these people believe that a steep drop-off in population is inevitable, and they'd rather effect it sooner than later.
It’s extremely depressing that you can’t have more than a couple paragraphs’ discussion without extremism kicking in. No, thinking people shouldn’t drive a 2-ton vehicle for 40km to buy 200g of Wagyu every other day is not the same as planning mass murder. Your comment is inflammatory and delusional.
Your example describes a fantasy.
The vast majority of people do not travel anywhere close to 40km to buy groceries. Even in a car-centric country like America, the average driver travels just 4km.
If someone has to travel 40km or more to get to a grocery store, it's because they live rural. People who travel that far for groceries do not buy 200g of wagyu at a time. They typically only go once or a few times per month and they stock up.
The population of people who live rural is very small. People who live rural are also quite poor.
The carbon emissions, environmental impact, and fuel consumption of this population of people is so unbelievably small, it's irrelevant.
But, you are targeting this small population of poor people. No wonder you get so much pushback, or "extremism". I guess poor people defending their way of life is extreme.