4 ms·

> privileged people I don't eat a ton of beef, but no, beef is relatively affordable (at least in America). But I do eat a lot more chicken, and not a ton of

by bin0 7y ago

> privileged people I don't eat a ton of beef, but no, beef is relatively affordable (at least in America). But I do eat a lot more chicken, and not a ton of beef. With that said, I want a good steak once every few months and a burger once a week. More importantly, I don't want the government saying "thou shalt" about my beef consumption, nor do I want people finger-wagging at me about it. America can sustainably raise cattle. She has requisite land. It seems that people are saying that because everyone else can't do it, we need to change. This is also the tragedy of the commons. If I emit less, others will feel they can emit more. I refuse to be "the sucker" that loses this game theory problem. With that said, I don't emit that much (all things considered). My biggest carbon outputs are driving (which I have to do) and air conditioning (I will not give this up; come live in hundred-degree Texas summers without it and then tell me to give it up). So I don't consider myself to be a catastrophic contributor to any thing. Besides, would money not be better spent curing cancer? I'm not sure that I believe the "impending doom" stuff about global warming. Humans are the most remarkably adaptable species on the planet; we will adapt to a hotter earth if need be.

valw 7y ago
> With that said, I don't emit that much (all things considered) Cool, how much? IIRC, sustainability would require an individual average below 2 teqCO2/year. > Besides, would money not be better spent curing cancer? Look at what the world would look like if climate change is not prevented: https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-like-4degc-warmer https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-l.... Think of the consequences in famines (whole countries transformed into deserts), flooding, and the mass migrations and wars that would ensue. So no, cancer is not the priority, not when people will die by the hundreds of millions before reaching the age for getting cancer. > I'm not sure that I believe the "impending doom" stuff about global warming. Then you are in denial, and need to be exposed to more science. Again, sorry for being blunt. > Humans are the most remarkably adaptable species on the planet; we will adapt to a hotter earth if need be. Yeah sure, we can't individually give up on our beef sandwich, but we will have no problem adapting collectively to most of our current living spaces becoming uninhabitable.
- bin0 7y ago
  Dividing household total (according to the EPA calculator: https://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/ https://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/) number of people, about 5.7 tons/person/yr. This is less than the American average. This is also considering that people in said household are required to drive long distances for work (I'm talking 300-mile distances several times per month). We do, however, drive mostly diesel. None of us are willing to give up our jobs. Transportation is most of our emissions; AC is the runner-up. How about you? > Look at what the world would look like if climate change is not prevented I think global warming is over-exaggerated by alarmists who seek to push a political agenda. I'd say it's reasonable to say there's an issue, but certainly not of the magnitude many pretend. I hear 97% quoted a lot, but believe many are simply afraid to contradict the narrative blasted at every one from all major media outlets. 97% it may be, but it wouldn't be the first time the "scientific consensus" was wrong. > You are in denial Nope, see above > we can't individually give up on our beef sandwich I don't want to, and even if I do, someone else will feel like he is now able to emit more. As I said, tragedy of the commons. And I just don't buy the idea that our living spaces will "become uninhabitable". Why the predictions of a global desert? Greenhouses tend to be damp and flourishing.
  - bonaldi 7y ago
    I read this comment yesterday and I keep coming back to it because it depresses me at a fundamental level. "I don't wanna change and even if I was going to I reckon _they_ wouldn't so I still won't" is the tragedy of the commons yes. But that's not a _defence_ of your actions, it's an admission of your culpability. The "I'm not in denial, I'm just denying the science" is just cream on the top.
- dorgo 7y ago
  > https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-l... https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-l.... I could not see any graphics/media (the website is a mess. It tries to load a dozen 3rd party resources). But the article is pretty optimistic: > Now is the time to buy property in Greenland – before it too turns green... > Yeah sure, we can't individually give up on our beef sandwich I'm sure there will be cities in these new deserts. And people in these cities will still eat beef sandwiches. If somebody talks like that, my impression is always that it's more about restriction and reduction than about saving the world. > Cool, how much? IIRC, sustainability would require an individual average below 2 teqCO2/year. Cool, is there a CO2 calculator somewhere?
richk449 7y ago
> This is also the tragedy of the commons. If I emit less, others will feel they can emit more. I refuse to be "the sucker" that loses this game theory problem. The whole point in the tragedy of the commons is that if everyone follows their own self interest (as you are doing) then everyone loses. That is why it is called a tragedy. Saying you are going to avoid losing by taking what you want completely misunderstands what the problem is.
stordoff 7y ago
> come live in hundred-degree Texas summers without it and then tell me to give [air-con] up [...] we will adapt to a hotter earth if need be Are you sure about that? It seems like we'd adapt by using more power, deepening the problem.
- dorgo 7y ago
  > It seems like we'd adapt by using more power, deepening the problem. Not if it is solar/wind power as is the case for 50% of the power already (in my country). With 100% renewables you can waste as much energy as you like.

by bin0 7y ago

valw 7y ago

> With that said, I don't emit that much (all things considered) Cool, how much? IIRC, sustainability would require an individual average below 2 teqCO2/year. > Besides, would money not be better spent curing cancer? Look at what the world would look like if climate change is not prevented: https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-like-4degc-warmer https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-l.... Think of the consequences in famines (whole countries transformed into deserts), flooding, and the mass migrations and wars that would ensue. So no, cancer is not the priority, not when people will die by the hundreds of millions before reaching the age for getting cancer. > I'm not sure that I believe the "impending doom" stuff about global warming. Then you are in denial, and need to be exposed to more science. Again, sorry for being blunt. > Humans are the most remarkably adaptable species on the planet; we will adapt to a hotter earth if need be. Yeah sure, we can't individually give up on our beef sandwich, but we will have no problem adapting collectively to most of our current living spaces becoming uninhabitable.

bin0 7y ago
Dividing household total (according to the EPA calculator: https://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/ https://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/) number of people, about 5.7 tons/person/yr. This is less than the American average. This is also considering that people in said household are required to drive long distances for work (I'm talking 300-mile distances several times per month). We do, however, drive mostly diesel. None of us are willing to give up our jobs. Transportation is most of our emissions; AC is the runner-up. How about you? > Look at what the world would look like if climate change is not prevented I think global warming is over-exaggerated by alarmists who seek to push a political agenda. I'd say it's reasonable to say there's an issue, but certainly not of the magnitude many pretend. I hear 97% quoted a lot, but believe many are simply afraid to contradict the narrative blasted at every one from all major media outlets. 97% it may be, but it wouldn't be the first time the "scientific consensus" was wrong. > You are in denial Nope, see above > we can't individually give up on our beef sandwich I don't want to, and even if I do, someone else will feel like he is now able to emit more. As I said, tragedy of the commons. And I just don't buy the idea that our living spaces will "become uninhabitable". Why the predictions of a global desert? Greenhouses tend to be damp and flourishing.
- bonaldi 7y ago
  I read this comment yesterday and I keep coming back to it because it depresses me at a fundamental level. "I don't wanna change and even if I was going to I reckon _they_ wouldn't so I still won't" is the tragedy of the commons yes. But that's not a _defence_ of your actions, it's an admission of your culpability. The "I'm not in denial, I'm just denying the science" is just cream on the top.
dorgo 7y ago
> https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-l... https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-l.... I could not see any graphics/media (the website is a mess. It tries to load a dozen 3rd party resources). But the article is pretty optimistic: > Now is the time to buy property in Greenland – before it too turns green... > Yeah sure, we can't individually give up on our beef sandwich I'm sure there will be cities in these new deserts. And people in these cities will still eat beef sandwiches. If somebody talks like that, my impression is always that it's more about restriction and reduction than about saving the world. > Cool, how much? IIRC, sustainability would require an individual average below 2 teqCO2/year. Cool, is there a CO2 calculator somewhere?

richk449 7y ago

> This is also the tragedy of the commons. If I emit less, others will feel they can emit more. I refuse to be "the sucker" that loses this game theory problem. The whole point in the tragedy of the commons is that if everyone follows their own self interest (as you are doing) then everyone loses. That is why it is called a tragedy. Saying you are going to avoid losing by taking what you want completely misunderstands what the problem is.

stordoff 7y ago

> come live in hundred-degree Texas summers without it and then tell me to give [air-con] up [...] we will adapt to a hotter earth if need be Are you sure about that? It seems like we'd adapt by using more power, deepening the problem.

dorgo 7y ago
> It seems like we'd adapt by using more power, deepening the problem. Not if it is solar/wind power as is the case for 50% of the power already (in my country). With 100% renewables you can waste as much energy as you like.