5 ms·

>No one wants to give up their own personal comfort or lifestyle for the sake of "the planet." Seriously? Who are you to say that of others?! I'm French (Par

>No one wants to give up their own personal comfort or lifestyle for the sake of "the planet." Seriously? Who are you to say that of others?! I'm French (Parisian, actually) and I keep demonstrating with yellow vests to try and force political action so we can save the biosphere. I've been giving up on my personal comfort for years to reduce my environment footprint and help others do the same: I don't go skiing anymore, I don't fly, I stopped driving (this morning, like any, I rode a bicycle although it's snowing heavily in Paris), I spend more and more to buy organic food for the environment (not for my health but to support farmers who care), I spend hours every weeks in NGO and various "1901 associations" to better understand how other can save the environment (even though it's extremely difficult for many, especially the poor) and to help others caring about the environment. I've been changing everything in my life just for the environment (I don't want to live on a dying Earth and watch the world burn), and I really don't know what I can do more. I'm really tired and comments like yours are really adding insult to the injury. I really want to scream a big F*CK you to your face for saying that "No one wants to give up their own personal comfort or lifestyle for the sake of "the planet."". Can you understand that? You seem to have given up any hope in political change, but please, don't speak for other. Edit: one might think I can simply afford spending times and money of trying to reduce the environment but when you've reduced consumption to the minimum, work in a company that try its best to develop technologies to trigger an energy revolution and spend as much time and money possible to accelerate the movement, there's little else one can do to not rerupt when hearing comments such as OP's (and go into depression). Go watch First Reformed if you haven't already.

jakewins 8y ago
.. but I thought the yellow vest protests directly lead to rolling back legislation meant to increase prices of CO2-polluting fuel, so that renewable fuels would be able to compete? https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/12/france-puts-fuel-tax-hold-appease-yellow-vest-protestors/577288/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/12/fr...
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
  It's far more complicated than that. Most of those who suffer from those tax do NOT have any alternative to their heavily-polluting cars. Rich people can pay such tax or go full EV but you cannot compel the poor to pay such taxes that will make them just poorer. When you already have trouble feeding yourself and your family, you go crazy and you vote Macron out. Believe me, if Macron keeps lowering the taxes on the extra rich and insists on making the poor pay high taxes for indispensable fuels, we'll get the far right pretty quickly and a far, far worst government in power that will happily destroy any environmental regulation. We've probably passed that point already but there isn't many other options but to force Macron to stop his crazy politics (he lowered the tax on capital gains to a point where I pay far less tax on my stock gains than on my actual work, it's really absurd).
- sonofaragorn 8y ago
  Yep, that was my understanding as well https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46439469 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46439469
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
    A comment further down this thread has the correct answer to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18972868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18972868 It's a about the email exchange between by the author of the fuel tax and the guy who introduced the law (if I recall correctly) in which they admit the tax is only a way to recover the tax revenue lost after the government decided to keep lowering employer taxes (aka C.I.C.E). The fuel tax was required after the Paris Summit (which took place before Macron became president) and the current government took it as an opportunity to switch the tax burden from the biggest companies (the ones that benefits from the CICE) to people who can't afford clean vehicles.
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
    No: https://www.lemonde.fr/climat/article/2018/12/08/marche-pour-le-climat-environ-2-000-participants-a-paris_5394593_1652612.html https://www.lemonde.fr/climat/article/2018/12/08/marche-pour... I'm a yellow vest only because I care about the environment. I was in most of the demonstration and believe me, we share a lot between ecologists and the poor workers who cannot bear the burden of the transition. I come from a "milieu social" (don't know how to translate) where you pollute 100 times more than the poor and be praised by Macron for being part of the "startup nation", "those who succeeds vs those who are nothing" etc. Macron doesn't really care about the environment (ask Nicolas Hulot!).
Diederich 8y ago
> No one I understand your anger here, but I'm 99% sure that the person you're replying to didn't mean that literally. 'No one' is often used to mean 'almost no one'. I'm sure you'll agree that your behaviour is well into 1% territory, as an overall percentage of people. You are to be applauded of course.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
  Do you realize that your comment contributes to a self-fulfilling prophecy that climate change deniers (among others) have been pushing for? Denying the possibility of political solutions makes it harder to fight for such solutions. Reducing one's environmental footprint is quite difficult already, but fighting the fossil fuel industry (and many other lobbies who do NOT want a transition) is even harder. When you realize that many banks and financial institutions have huuuge fossil-related assets on their books, you'll realize that an enormous % of the economy is resisting the switch to renewables. Not just the energy and auto industries. And many politicians are corrupt and will make sure not to fight for a quick transition (even if it means slowing down some technological developments, juuust a little). Innovations are made in the real world, where political institutions have real control and where human beings have real limits and real emotions. Of course we will have to switch to renewables (that's obvious: non renewable are not renewable so they can't last infinitely) but by denying the important of political action/solution, we'll certainly end up rushing into violent events (possibly wars). So please, be very careful not to forget that things always end up being political because we always have to make decisions (is it okay to pollute how much, should we finance some research / education, etc). And please don't be indifferent to the millions activists (many of whom are scientists/engineers) who work their asses off to not devastate the biosphere.
  - Diederich 8y ago
    > Denying the possibility of political solutions Of course the most viable solutions are largely political; I've never said or implied otherwise. > When you realize that many banks and financial institutions have huuuge fossil-related assets on their books, you'll realize that an enormous % of the economy is resisting the switch to renewables. These and related facts have been high on my mind for decades now. > So please, be very careful not to forget that things always end up being political because we always have to make decisions I'll never forget that. I think you need to calm down a bit.
dpark 8y ago
> I really want to scream a big FCK you to your face for saying that "No one wants to give up their own personal comfort or lifestyle for the sake of "the planet."". Can you understand that? You seem to have given up any hope in political change, but please, don't speak for other. You expect a political solution but your immediate reaction to someone expressing a differing opinion is overt hostility. I don’t know how to say this politely. You’re not a good advocate for the political process if you can’t calmly discuss the opposing viewpoint. At no point did you provide evidence that a political solution is viable. You just complained about others and explained how you’re an environmentalist martyr. Most people don’t want to be martyrs.
- TheArcane 8y ago
  I wouldn't call this "overt hostility".
  - mac01021 8y ago
    "I really want to scream a big F*CK you to your face" is certainly more overt than covert. Still, I sympathize with the sentiment, the attitude of despair is EXTREMELY frustrating.
    - rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
      I "wanted to" because of frustration, but my entire comment is intended to express the frustration, explain it and make sure we can better understand one another. Really the opposite of hostility but I certainly failed to express myself correctly. I'll try to do better next time.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
  That isn't my intention at all. English is not my first language so it might not help but please bear with me. I intentionally said "I really want to scream" and not "Let me say" because I certainly do not want to be hostile. I shared the point of view of the person I responded to, so no, I really did not express hostility but an invitation to understand that some people actually are giving up "their own personal comfort or lifestyle for the sake of the plane". >I don’t know how to say this politely. Look, you're writing something very similar to my "I want to" with this "I don't know but". I'm sure we both have good intentions. > You’re not a good advocate for the political process if you can’t calmly discuss the opposing viewpoint. I do not pretend to be a good advocate here. I'm trying to have someone consider that the actions of others are sincere. That people are actually fighting and giving up comfort (which the OP comment denied). I don't want to complain because I'm well off myself (good job, very secured financially, etc) but there are so many people who would not act if we keep denying the possibility of change and insists in making other choices non-existent or insincere. That would have be the case a younger me, that's why I'm quite emotional. It's just my feeling and I understand that it may not be welcome. >At no point did you provide evidence that a political solution is viable. Again, that's not my point. I could comment on that, but I reacted to the assumption that "No one wants to give up their own personal comfort or lifestyle for the sake of the planet". This is a very bad starting point to discuss this because the last decade of my life shows the contrary. I only complain that stating the contrary is false (logically) and morally wrong (who can speak for others about their intention?). Why do you think I'm a martyr? I certainly don't feel like one (again, I live in Paris and have enough time and resources to care not about my personal situation but climate change and poor workers who can't bear taxes). Nor do you I want anyone to be a martyr because I know we would have a violent regime change (probably not for the best) if people start feeling like they would have to die to be heard.
bamboozled 8y ago
Curious as to why you quit Skiing, why do you think that’s contributing to climate change? To me it seems like a really low emission activity, particaurly ski touring ?
- tcarver 8y ago
  this may be a location thing - most people do not have skiable mountains close by so for most people going skiing requires travelling by plane
- IdiocyInAction 8y ago
  I come from an area with lots of skiing. Snow cannons, piste bashers, lift maintenance. Skiing is very polluting. Besides, you have to (usually) drive quite a bit to get to the mountain. It's also extremely expensive.
  - bamboozled 8y ago
    Ah I see, I live in an area where man made snow does is not a thing I didn’t consider that stuff, cheers.
  - mar77i 8y ago
    The mountain meadows used for skiing are kind of a mess during the summer. I'm Swiss, and going to ski basically means to be pulled up by a lift and slide back down. The entire concept of it is laughably unproductive, resulting at most in sunburns, sports injuries and further pollution from drunk people at après ski parties. It's preposterous hedonism.
    - tcpekin 8y ago
      What form of entertainment or sport can you not reduce like this? You could say something in the same vein about jogging, watching TV, cycling, organized sports, etc. I'm American and going swimming basically means to go nowhere for as long as the exercise lasts. The entire concept of it is laughably unproductive, resulting in at most sunburns, sports injuries, and further pollution from chemicals used to clean the pools. It's preposterous hedonism.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tonmoy 8y ago
Also curious, why do you think eating organic helps the environment? Bonus if you have data
kanwisher 8y ago
Organic food is way worse for environment, it’s way less efficient and requires a lot more resources to create

jakewins 8y ago

.. but I thought the yellow vest protests directly lead to rolling back legislation meant to increase prices of CO2-polluting fuel, so that renewable fuels would be able to compete? https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/12/france-puts-fuel-tax-hold-appease-yellow-vest-protestors/577288/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/12/fr...

rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
It's far more complicated than that. Most of those who suffer from those tax do NOT have any alternative to their heavily-polluting cars. Rich people can pay such tax or go full EV but you cannot compel the poor to pay such taxes that will make them just poorer. When you already have trouble feeding yourself and your family, you go crazy and you vote Macron out. Believe me, if Macron keeps lowering the taxes on the extra rich and insists on making the poor pay high taxes for indispensable fuels, we'll get the far right pretty quickly and a far, far worst government in power that will happily destroy any environmental regulation. We've probably passed that point already but there isn't many other options but to force Macron to stop his crazy politics (he lowered the tax on capital gains to a point where I pay far less tax on my stock gains than on my actual work, it's really absurd).
sonofaragorn 8y ago
Yep, that was my understanding as well https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46439469 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46439469
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
  A comment further down this thread has the correct answer to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18972868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18972868 It's a about the email exchange between by the author of the fuel tax and the guy who introduced the law (if I recall correctly) in which they admit the tax is only a way to recover the tax revenue lost after the government decided to keep lowering employer taxes (aka C.I.C.E). The fuel tax was required after the Paris Summit (which took place before Macron became president) and the current government took it as an opportunity to switch the tax burden from the biggest companies (the ones that benefits from the CICE) to people who can't afford clean vehicles.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
  No: https://www.lemonde.fr/climat/article/2018/12/08/marche-pour-le-climat-environ-2-000-participants-a-paris_5394593_1652612.html https://www.lemonde.fr/climat/article/2018/12/08/marche-pour... I'm a yellow vest only because I care about the environment. I was in most of the demonstration and believe me, we share a lot between ecologists and the poor workers who cannot bear the burden of the transition. I come from a "milieu social" (don't know how to translate) where you pollute 100 times more than the poor and be praised by Macron for being part of the "startup nation", "those who succeeds vs those who are nothing" etc. Macron doesn't really care about the environment (ask Nicolas Hulot!).

Diederich 8y ago

> No one I understand your anger here, but I'm 99% sure that the person you're replying to didn't mean that literally. 'No one' is often used to mean 'almost no one'. I'm sure you'll agree that your behaviour is well into 1% territory, as an overall percentage of people. You are to be applauded of course.

rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
Do you realize that your comment contributes to a self-fulfilling prophecy that climate change deniers (among others) have been pushing for? Denying the possibility of political solutions makes it harder to fight for such solutions. Reducing one's environmental footprint is quite difficult already, but fighting the fossil fuel industry (and many other lobbies who do NOT want a transition) is even harder. When you realize that many banks and financial institutions have huuuge fossil-related assets on their books, you'll realize that an enormous % of the economy is resisting the switch to renewables. Not just the energy and auto industries. And many politicians are corrupt and will make sure not to fight for a quick transition (even if it means slowing down some technological developments, juuust a little). Innovations are made in the real world, where political institutions have real control and where human beings have real limits and real emotions. Of course we will have to switch to renewables (that's obvious: non renewable are not renewable so they can't last infinitely) but by denying the important of political action/solution, we'll certainly end up rushing into violent events (possibly wars). So please, be very careful not to forget that things always end up being political because we always have to make decisions (is it okay to pollute how much, should we finance some research / education, etc). And please don't be indifferent to the millions activists (many of whom are scientists/engineers) who work their asses off to not devastate the biosphere.
- Diederich 8y ago
  > Denying the possibility of political solutions Of course the most viable solutions are largely political; I've never said or implied otherwise. > When you realize that many banks and financial institutions have huuuge fossil-related assets on their books, you'll realize that an enormous % of the economy is resisting the switch to renewables. These and related facts have been high on my mind for decades now. > So please, be very careful not to forget that things always end up being political because we always have to make decisions I'll never forget that. I think you need to calm down a bit.

dpark 8y ago

> I really want to scream a big FCK you to your face for saying that "No one wants to give up their own personal comfort or lifestyle for the sake of "the planet."". Can you understand that? You seem to have given up any hope in political change, but please, don't speak for other. You expect a political solution but your immediate reaction to someone expressing a differing opinion is overt hostility. I don’t know how to say this politely. You’re not a good advocate for the political process if you can’t calmly discuss the opposing viewpoint. At no point did you provide evidence that a political solution is viable. You just complained about others and explained how you’re an environmentalist martyr. Most people don’t want to be martyrs.

TheArcane 8y ago
I wouldn't call this "overt hostility".
- mac01021 8y ago
  "I really want to scream a big F*CK you to your face" is certainly more overt than covert. Still, I sympathize with the sentiment, the attitude of despair is EXTREMELY frustrating.
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
    I "wanted to" because of frustration, but my entire comment is intended to express the frustration, explain it and make sure we can better understand one another. Really the opposite of hostility but I certainly failed to express myself correctly. I'll try to do better next time.
rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
That isn't my intention at all. English is not my first language so it might not help but please bear with me. I intentionally said "I really want to scream" and not "Let me say" because I certainly do not want to be hostile. I shared the point of view of the person I responded to, so no, I really did not express hostility but an invitation to understand that some people actually are giving up "their own personal comfort or lifestyle for the sake of the plane". >I don’t know how to say this politely. Look, you're writing something very similar to my "I want to" with this "I don't know but". I'm sure we both have good intentions. > You’re not a good advocate for the political process if you can’t calmly discuss the opposing viewpoint. I do not pretend to be a good advocate here. I'm trying to have someone consider that the actions of others are sincere. That people are actually fighting and giving up comfort (which the OP comment denied). I don't want to complain because I'm well off myself (good job, very secured financially, etc) but there are so many people who would not act if we keep denying the possibility of change and insists in making other choices non-existent or insincere. That would have be the case a younger me, that's why I'm quite emotional. It's just my feeling and I understand that it may not be welcome. >At no point did you provide evidence that a political solution is viable. Again, that's not my point. I could comment on that, but I reacted to the assumption that "No one wants to give up their own personal comfort or lifestyle for the sake of the planet". This is a very bad starting point to discuss this because the last decade of my life shows the contrary. I only complain that stating the contrary is false (logically) and morally wrong (who can speak for others about their intention?). Why do you think I'm a martyr? I certainly don't feel like one (again, I live in Paris and have enough time and resources to care not about my personal situation but climate change and poor workers who can't bear taxes). Nor do you I want anyone to be a martyr because I know we would have a violent regime change (probably not for the best) if people start feeling like they would have to die to be heard.

bamboozled 8y ago

Curious as to why you quit Skiing, why do you think that’s contributing to climate change? To me it seems like a really low emission activity, particaurly ski touring ?

tcarver 8y ago
this may be a location thing - most people do not have skiable mountains close by so for most people going skiing requires travelling by plane
IdiocyInAction 8y ago
I come from an area with lots of skiing. Snow cannons, piste bashers, lift maintenance. Skiing is very polluting. Besides, you have to (usually) drive quite a bit to get to the mountain. It's also extremely expensive.
- bamboozled 8y ago
  Ah I see, I live in an area where man made snow does is not a thing I didn’t consider that stuff, cheers.
- mar77i 8y ago
  The mountain meadows used for skiing are kind of a mess during the summer. I'm Swiss, and going to ski basically means to be pulled up by a lift and slide back down. The entire concept of it is laughably unproductive, resulting at most in sunburns, sports injuries and further pollution from drunk people at après ski parties. It's preposterous hedonism.
  - tcpekin 8y ago
    What form of entertainment or sport can you not reduce like this? You could say something in the same vein about jogging, watching TV, cycling, organized sports, etc. I'm American and going swimming basically means to go nowhere for as long as the exercise lasts. The entire concept of it is laughably unproductive, resulting in at most sunburns, sports injuries, and further pollution from chemicals used to clean the pools. It's preposterous hedonism.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

tonmoy 8y ago

Also curious, why do you think eating organic helps the environment? Bonus if you have data

kanwisher 8y ago

Organic food is way worse for environment, it’s way less efficient and requires a lot more resources to create