5 ms·
From what I understand, it's something like 10% of our infrastructure that contributes 99% of green house gasses. Even if 90% of people on earth decided to rec
by 43224gg252 9y ago
From what I understand, it's something like 10% of our infrastructure that contributes 99% of green house gasses.
Even if 90% of people on earth decided to recycle and go vegan and drive an electric car, it wouldn't make any difference as long as that 10% is using un-clean infrastructure (container ships are said to produce the pollution of millions of cars, we still burn coal for most of our energy needs, etc).
- roryisok 9y agoWell, that 10% exists to serve us consumers. Container ships are big polluters. Maybe if we tried to buy things locally and second hand rather than ordering new stuff from overseas, it might have a minor impact on shipping? And regarding coal, it's possible to choose a green electricity supplier here in Ireland at least
- dwhabcdefg 9y agoAnother thing we can do is to continue to bring attention to projects like this one: http://www.whiteboardmag.com/propelwind-wingsail-technology-cargo-ships/ http://www.whiteboardmag.com/propelwind-wingsail-technology-... I'm probably more in the "use technology to help, while I do what I can" rather than "technology will save us, so carry on" camp.
- peteretep 9y ago> Maybe if we tried to buy things locally Or just tax items that have shown up by container enough to reflect environmental cost; this is a political issue.
- spodek 9y ago1. That's not how supply and demand works. The infrastructure is there to sustain our behavior. If we change our behavior, we'll change the system. 2. We can do other things than what you suggested. We can reduce consumption over mere recycling. We can have fewer children. We can drive less and reduce car ownership beyond just using electric cars. We can shift taxes to carbon from other things. 3. If other things make bigger differences, we can work on them too. Eating less meat is not exclusive with reducing consumption to reduce the number of container ships. 4. If you don't want to do anything, you don't have to. You can give up on making a difference. That's what billions of people are already doing. If you have more important things to do, you should probably do them.
- twobyfour 9y agoOr we can use regulation and taxes to re-internalize externalities of actions like burning coal for power or shipping items via highly polluting container ships.
- harryh 9y agoRegulation and taxes are a means not an ends. They do not, in and of themselves, fix the problem. They fix the problem by getting people to do the things spodek suggested.
- twobyfour 9y agoYes. They just tend to be much more effective than asking billions of individuals to each take actions that without such regulations and taxes would mean additional cost, inconvenience, and mental overhead compared to alternatives.
- kasey_junk 9y agoThats true, but they also do something else which is internalize costs, meaning that people can make better apples to apples comparisons of the true costs of things. Right now climate change emitting energy is unfairly subsidized because the climate change costs are not accounted for.
- harryh 9y agoOh totally. I'm just pushing back against the idea that taxes are the solution in and of themselves because sometimes I think people hear that and think "Oh, so I can basically keep doing what I'm doing and just pay a bit more in taxes and things will be fine." when it's really "Massive emissions taxes will make your current lifestyle unaffordable so you will be forced to make significant cuts in your energy consumption."
- twobyfour 9y agoWell, when the problem is externalities (carbon emissions are a cost of certain types of energy production, but a cost not paid for by the producer or consumer), the solution is generally to re-internalize the externalities. Taxes are a pretty efficient way to accomplish that. What alternatives would you propose?
- acqq 9y agoFor global warming, not every "pollution" is the same. Your argument is definitely not for greenhouse gases, but for other kinds of pollutants. The container shipping is responsible for 3.5% to 4% of all climate change emissions (source https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping... ). All kinds of transportation together produce approximately 14% of all greenhouse gases emissions (source: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... ).
- Retric 9y agoBurning durty fuel produces more than just CO2 which causes acid rain / Smog etc. Those container ships use surprisingly little fuel so their greenhouse gas emissions are fairly low. It's really just nitrogen oxides etc that are an issue.
- harryh 9y agoYour understanding is wrong. For example, 27% of emissions come from transportation and the majority of that comes from personal transportation (cars basically). https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#transportation https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
- nthcolumn 9y ago70% of global carbon emissions are produced by just 100 companies, mostly fossil fuel producers.
- nthcolumn 9y agohttps://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...