3 ms·

I am glad kids are taking action rather than just complaining, however, people can take personal action. The money for any pay out from a suit will most likely

by eggy 10y ago

I am glad kids are taking action rather than just complaining, however, people can take personal action. The money for any pay out from a suit will most likely come from their future social benefits rather than the industries they are suing. Some personal choices to take action on: Buy local produce, and let your local supermarket or grocer know this. Educate others. It saves on all of the transport emissions from air or truck freight of goods. Cut back on electrical, and gas usage. Most homes I have visited in the US have multiple TVs, each family member has more than two computers, or smartphones and tablets. Car pool. Buy economy cars, not SUVs. Walk. Run. Cycle to work. Americans can sure use the exercise and diet changes. (DISCLAIMER: I am an American, born and raised). I was working physically 9-11 hours a day in Las Vegas, and cycling 6 miles to and from the construction site each day. Obese co-workers called me crazy. Then before Christmas 2009, I gave CPR to a 35 year old man with two kids and new born baby on the site, but he died before he hit the ground from a massive coronary. He had just arrived to work with Dunkin Donuts coffee and donuts in a bag and dropped. He stopped taking his heart medication his wife said. After being in SE Asia for 8 years, and returning to the US, my perception of just how obese Americans have become is striking. I have been living in the rice fields of East Java, so it is even more stark. I am a libertarian and mainly capitalist, so I don't wish any of this forced on anyone through legislation, and people are free to continue in their ways; I am just presenting some perceptions that might make people think twice about their lifestyles. They can choose what they want, but their are consequences locally and globally. For me, I have not felt healthier, and less stressed, and I will take these tools, perceptions and lifestyle choices back with me to the US. I went vegetarian 3 years ago, haven't drank alcohol in 7 years, and I run and exercise everyday. I know it might be harder when I get back, but I have built a solid foundation to continue there anyways. Big country-wide, policy changes need to be thought out economically, since we can only throw so much money and manpower at a particular solution. Some of the more rational choices may seem to go against feelings, and unfortunately, those who want the vote, vote for what makes people feel happier, not what's probably best for them and the country as a whole.

tajen 10y ago
> people can take personal action They can, but it won't help. Just watch Mythbusters to understand that things you don't consume will be consumed by someone else. When we need to divide our emissions by 10, people who make an effort won't offset people who don't. Carpooling won't help enough. Economy cars won't help. Renewable heating won't help. Wind turbines won't help. All of that together will never even divide your consumption by 2, plus since we save money by using less energy, we have more money available that we spend on other carbon-emitting products. We need everyone to take action, so that the ecologist worker isn't disadvantaged in his life compared to the meat/petrol/flight/wasteful worker. Let's look at the numbers: - Nature absorbs 3GtC per year [1] (Giga-tons of carbon. 1t of Carbon = 3.7t of CO2). - We'll be 9 billion people on Earth in 2050, so each human can emit 0.333tC per year (or 1.23t of CO2). The argument that some (USA) consume more than others (Philippines) is offset by the facts that the development of most poor countries is soaring (hear: China will access the consumer market just like USA) and the poor also use inefficient and polluting processes. - So our goal is 1.23t of CO2 (=0.333t of carbon) per person per year. We emit 22t of CO2 per year in USA, 9t in France, 5.5t in Romania and 4t in China. You can calculate the rate for yourself [3]. And that's only to come back to nature-reasonable footprints. If we want to offset the carbon that's already in the air, we need to make even more effort. So the effort in every industrialized country is to divide our emissions by ~10, which is unreachable by simple personal action. [1] https://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/quota_GHG.html https://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/... [2] http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/content/environmental_footprint_of_nations/ http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/content/environmental_fo... [3] http://www.carbonindependent.org/ http://www.carbonindependent.org/ - Carbon footprint calculator Since you too believe in the power of markets, a huge tax on carbon will advantage those who emit fewer CO2 and will be much easier to manage for corporations than any regulation. It has to be offset by lowering other taxes, so we don't increase the global tax pressure on the economy. It just has to be high enough so that all the cost of global warming weighs on CO2 emitters only, which probably means some types of jobs (e.g. half of car factories) belong to the past. But it's either that, or a global warming that creates such pressure on our civilizations that we might live in endless wars.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Add to this, increasing green energy generation produces credits to sell, which enables more CO2 emissions.
- eggy 10y ago
  I'll have to review all of it in more detail, but I still believe change happens at the individual level including not spending the savings on other carbon-emitting products. It's similar to emergence in self-organized systems. Great, coordinated actions follow from simple, local rules or behavior or action. I fully understand wasted effort, like paper vs. plastic bags (as so aptly argued in Guesstimation book), when you consume more gas driving to the supermarket, and if you cut down on frequency of trips you offset the non-issue of plastic vs. paper. I do believe in both individual and societal action, however society is construct of individuals, and ultimately action happens at the individual level. Law suits seem to be counter to both your argument and mine. I don't think they accomplish more than my suggestions. I am in great health now, and I consume half the food I used to, and not the carbon-emitting heavy hitter like meat and dairy anymore. I am an optimist, and I think if 100 million US citizens cut their food consumption by quarter or half, it would be a significant change on quality of life, society and carbon emission. The power of markets for me is consumer-driven, not government mandated like a carbon tax. Government cannot legislate intelligence or change, and to look to government for this is part of the problem in my opinion. People need to take a look at their lifestyles and choices.
abyssin 10y ago
This idea that fighting global warming has to start from individual behavior disregards the fact that lifestyle choices have social implications and are likewise constrained by social situations. Individuals are tied to their environment and free will meets constraints in reality. There are people who wish to adopt more sustainable lifestyles, but can't because it would make them unable to find a job, see their family and friends, move around, etc. Individual choices have a marginal impact. And this impact ofter comes with a high cost in terms of comfort. The idea that change must come from individuals has been around for a long time, without much effect so far. I hope governments can support people who want to live in a way that is closer to their values (sustainability) by actively disincentivize irresponsible and destructive behavior.
greeneggs 10y ago
> Buy local produce, and let your local supermarket or grocer know this. Educate others. It saves on all of the transport emissions from air or truck freight of goods. This doesn't make much sense intuitively, and a quick Google search seems to confirm that most of the environment impact of produce comes from the growing efficiency and production methods, not from its transportation. Feel-good measures that do very little are bad enough, since they encourage complacency, but feel-good measures that actually make the environment worse are terrible! In terms of one's diet, I think the best one can do is to stop eating beef. It is terrible compared to other meats. In terms of one's overall impact, getting involved politically is probably the easiest way to make a change. Switching from Mexican tomatoes to greenhouse-grown Canadian tomatoes is not going to make much of a difference in either direction.
- eggy 10y ago
  I should have been more clear on what I meant by 'local produce': Local, or US Feta cheese, not imported from Greece. California pistachios, not Turkish. USA/NJ tomatoes, not from Holland or elsewhere. Farmer's markets. Every little bit helps, and it is not like you are taking any austerity measure between Greek or US Feta for example. People rely too much on government to legislate intelligence. Emergent properties arise out of local, individual changes in behavior or choices. Yes, government matters, but it does start with individuals. As far as growing efficiency and production, the US both imports and exports more food than any other country. We are very efficient at growing subsidized crops like corn. Why don't we stop the subsidies and grow more variety with the same efficiency? Less exporting, which is primarily due to an abundance in the US due to subsidies, would certainly trim the carbon footprint. The US exports $149 Trillion worth of food! Agreed on beef, and all the sugar in the American diet in the form of corn syrup and others.
  - greeneggs 10y ago
    I don't know. Shipping is incredibly efficient these days. If only 10% of the CO2 footprint of your food comes from shipping (which is roughly right according to quick Google searches), optimizing shipping distance is really the wrong thing. Instead, you should choose the most efficient producers, wherever in the world they are located---that is, optimize the 90% term. How? Buy the cheapest food! If Turkish pistachios are cheaper than California ones, then they are probably being grown more efficiently, with lower CO2 emissions. Price presumably reflects producer costs. We certainly don't export $149 trillion of food annually. US GDP is only $16.8 trillion. I see $133 billion of agricultural exports in 2015, according to [1]. But again, I don't think this matters, and don't think that reducing food exports and imports would reduce total CO2 emissions. [1] http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/foreign-agricultural-trade-of-the-united-states-fatus/calendar-year/ http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/foreign-agricultural-t...

by eggy 10y ago

tajen 10y ago

> people can take personal action They can, but it won't help. Just watch Mythbusters to understand that things you don't consume will be consumed by someone else. When we need to divide our emissions by 10, people who make an effort won't offset people who don't. Carpooling won't help enough. Economy cars won't help. Renewable heating won't help. Wind turbines won't help. All of that together will never even divide your consumption by 2, plus since we save money by using less energy, we have more money available that we spend on other carbon-emitting products. We need everyone to take action, so that the ecologist worker isn't disadvantaged in his life compared to the meat/petrol/flight/wasteful worker. Let's look at the numbers: - Nature absorbs 3GtC per year [1] (Giga-tons of carbon. 1t of Carbon = 3.7t of CO2). - We'll be 9 billion people on Earth in 2050, so each human can emit 0.333tC per year (or 1.23t of CO2). The argument that some (USA) consume more than others (Philippines) is offset by the facts that the development of most poor countries is soaring (hear: China will access the consumer market just like USA) and the poor also use inefficient and polluting processes. - So our goal is 1.23t of CO2 (=0.333t of carbon) per person per year. We emit 22t of CO2 per year in USA, 9t in France, 5.5t in Romania and 4t in China. You can calculate the rate for yourself [3]. And that's only to come back to nature-reasonable footprints. If we want to offset the carbon that's already in the air, we need to make even more effort. So the effort in every industrialized country is to divide our emissions by ~10, which is unreachable by simple personal action. [1] https://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/quota_GHG.html https://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/... [2] http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/content/environmental_footprint_of_nations/ http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/content/environmental_fo... [3] http://www.carbonindependent.org/ http://www.carbonindependent.org/ - Carbon footprint calculator Since you too believe in the power of markets, a huge tax on carbon will advantage those who emit fewer CO2 and will be much easier to manage for corporations than any regulation. It has to be offset by lowering other taxes, so we don't increase the global tax pressure on the economy. It just has to be high enough so that all the cost of global warming weighs on CO2 emitters only, which probably means some types of jobs (e.g. half of car factories) belong to the past. But it's either that, or a global warming that creates such pressure on our civilizations that we might live in endless wars.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Add to this, increasing green energy generation produces credits to sell, which enables more CO2 emissions.
eggy 10y ago
I'll have to review all of it in more detail, but I still believe change happens at the individual level including not spending the savings on other carbon-emitting products. It's similar to emergence in self-organized systems. Great, coordinated actions follow from simple, local rules or behavior or action. I fully understand wasted effort, like paper vs. plastic bags (as so aptly argued in Guesstimation book), when you consume more gas driving to the supermarket, and if you cut down on frequency of trips you offset the non-issue of plastic vs. paper. I do believe in both individual and societal action, however society is construct of individuals, and ultimately action happens at the individual level. Law suits seem to be counter to both your argument and mine. I don't think they accomplish more than my suggestions. I am in great health now, and I consume half the food I used to, and not the carbon-emitting heavy hitter like meat and dairy anymore. I am an optimist, and I think if 100 million US citizens cut their food consumption by quarter or half, it would be a significant change on quality of life, society and carbon emission. The power of markets for me is consumer-driven, not government mandated like a carbon tax. Government cannot legislate intelligence or change, and to look to government for this is part of the problem in my opinion. People need to take a look at their lifestyles and choices.

abyssin 10y ago

This idea that fighting global warming has to start from individual behavior disregards the fact that lifestyle choices have social implications and are likewise constrained by social situations. Individuals are tied to their environment and free will meets constraints in reality. There are people who wish to adopt more sustainable lifestyles, but can't because it would make them unable to find a job, see their family and friends, move around, etc. Individual choices have a marginal impact. And this impact ofter comes with a high cost in terms of comfort. The idea that change must come from individuals has been around for a long time, without much effect so far. I hope governments can support people who want to live in a way that is closer to their values (sustainability) by actively disincentivize irresponsible and destructive behavior.

greeneggs 10y ago

> Buy local produce, and let your local supermarket or grocer know this. Educate others. It saves on all of the transport emissions from air or truck freight of goods. This doesn't make much sense intuitively, and a quick Google search seems to confirm that most of the environment impact of produce comes from the growing efficiency and production methods, not from its transportation. Feel-good measures that do very little are bad enough, since they encourage complacency, but feel-good measures that actually make the environment worse are terrible! In terms of one's diet, I think the best one can do is to stop eating beef. It is terrible compared to other meats. In terms of one's overall impact, getting involved politically is probably the easiest way to make a change. Switching from Mexican tomatoes to greenhouse-grown Canadian tomatoes is not going to make much of a difference in either direction.

eggy 10y ago
I should have been more clear on what I meant by 'local produce': Local, or US Feta cheese, not imported from Greece. California pistachios, not Turkish. USA/NJ tomatoes, not from Holland or elsewhere. Farmer's markets. Every little bit helps, and it is not like you are taking any austerity measure between Greek or US Feta for example. People rely too much on government to legislate intelligence. Emergent properties arise out of local, individual changes in behavior or choices. Yes, government matters, but it does start with individuals. As far as growing efficiency and production, the US both imports and exports more food than any other country. We are very efficient at growing subsidized crops like corn. Why don't we stop the subsidies and grow more variety with the same efficiency? Less exporting, which is primarily due to an abundance in the US due to subsidies, would certainly trim the carbon footprint. The US exports $149 Trillion worth of food! Agreed on beef, and all the sugar in the American diet in the form of corn syrup and others.
- greeneggs 10y ago
  I don't know. Shipping is incredibly efficient these days. If only 10% of the CO2 footprint of your food comes from shipping (which is roughly right according to quick Google searches), optimizing shipping distance is really the wrong thing. Instead, you should choose the most efficient producers, wherever in the world they are located---that is, optimize the 90% term. How? Buy the cheapest food! If Turkish pistachios are cheaper than California ones, then they are probably being grown more efficiently, with lower CO2 emissions. Price presumably reflects producer costs. We certainly don't export $149 trillion of food annually. US GDP is only $16.8 trillion. I see $133 billion of agricultural exports in 2015, according to [1]. But again, I don't think this matters, and don't think that reducing food exports and imports would reduce total CO2 emissions. [1] http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/foreign-agricultural-trade-of-the-united-states-fatus/calendar-year/ http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/foreign-agricultural-t...