3 ms·

And a good number of those 42M are right here on this site, perennially outraged about climate change.

• atoav 7y ago
  Ok, and how does this insight help to solve the problem? Or did you already decide not to solve it?
  • m0zg 7y ago
    I'm not "solving problems" here. I'm just calling out the hypocrisy of the upper middle class who would like to, at the same time, have high carbon upper middle class lifestyle, and cry about climate change on Twitter. It's always got to be someone else who has to "sacrifice". As to me personally, I work from home, so I likely emit considerably less than most people. And most of my energy consumption is electricity ($200/mo - servers in the garage), but in my state that's mostly hydro. I do eat meat though, and I'm not about to stop eating it.
    • sho 7y ago
      > It's always got to be someone else who has to "sacrifice". No that is bullshit. I am personally willing to pay the price to reduce my carbon impact. Indeed I already do with flights, etc. I couldn't care less if my electricity price doubled or tripled to deal with the problem. The problem is NOT these upper middle classes as you say, but the lower classes who would be absolutely wiped out by these changes - not to mention losing their cars. That's the insidious part. Low carbon prices actually benefits those lowest on the food chain. It pits the rich against the poor - and how does that go these days?
      • m0zg 7y ago
        But you can't "pay to reduce your carbon impact". That money, as a rule, does not reduce the amount of carbon you emit. It just makes you feel better. What would make a difference is not flying in the first place, not having a fancy car, not upgrading that phone every year, living in a smaller house, not having kids, not eating meat, not eating non-local fruit and produce, etc, etc. Not quite going back to the stone age, but reducing the quality of life considerably. And that's something the upper middle class is just not prepared to sacrifice, "climate catastrophe" or not, gotta have that beachfront property (looking at you Barack and Al).
        • AstralStorm 7y ago
          And the people who do have kids will prosper, and those who don't will die off. This proposed policy is not sustainable. Who pays for the marketing campaign on those new gadgets? Maybe they can change their mind and sell less breakable ones, even though it's worse for business? You and me might resist the siren call of marketing, but most cannot. Middle class cannot in general afford property, much less beachfront one. Maybe with a big mortgage. You're conflating rich and super rich with the middle class.
          • m0zg 7y ago
            >> And the people who do have kids will prosper, and those who don't will die off It's interesting that you latched onto this rather than something more feasible for most people, like a smaller house or not having a car. This way you can dismiss my critique out of hand, and continue with your present lifestyle while pretending to care. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing. >> Middle class cannot in general afford property, That's why I'm talking about the _upper_ middle class here. If you make quarter of a million dollars a year, you can afford property.
            • sho 7y ago
              I do not appreciate you passing off opposing arguments as "cognitive dissonance". The basic fact that subspecies X will outbreed subspecies Y is inarguable, no matter how much dirt you attempt to throw. No-one is willing to have this conversation; I thought we might until you ruined it with this very disappointing behaviour. Stop it.
              • m0zg 7y ago
                >> No-one is willing to have this conversation And that, my dear friend, is exactly my point. Think about this thread next time you pay for your "carbon offsets".
    • anoncake 7y ago
      What does this accomplish? Calling people hypocrites for "crying" about climate change just makes them deny that their lifestyle is a problem in the first place. That is strictly worse than "hypocrisy": It reduces the prominence of climate change in public discourse and moves public opinion even further away from "let's not destroy our livelihoods" to "muh jobs". In addition, someone who does take their carbon footprint into account but is a flawed human being rather than Jesus still has a lower footprint than someone who ignores it to avoid being a hypocrite.
      • m0zg 7y ago
        But they are in denial already. Calling them hypocrites is just stating the obvious. Hopefully it'll make them think, even if for a fleeting minute, and not buy that third Hawaiian vacation this year.
        • anoncake 7y ago
          No, someone who denies the importance of protecting the climate by definition cannot be hypocritical for not protecting the climate. Also, making hypocrites think is pointless because their thoughts aren't the problem to begin with, their actions are. They say you cannot make someone believe something when their salary depends on not believing it. Of course you can't if society deems it more important that your thoughts match your actions than that they match reality.
      • smsm42 7y ago
        Avoiding being a hypocrite is not ignoring anything. It's if you think carbon emissions are bad, maybe you shouldn't hop on a private plane every week to tell people about it on another continent. Maybe you could do it using such modern marvels as video and internet, or at least use commercial air travel which would spend almost the same amount of energy to carry 300 people as was previously spent carrying just you and your personal chef (you can't propose one could travel without personal chef, right?!). I get when some TV talking head is worried about environment. Good for them. But before lecturing my on my carbon footprint, maybe they could take at least some effort to deal with theirs, which is probably like 100x bigger than mine, and unlike me giving up my car (which would make me almost unemployable and unable to get food or basic goods in many places in US) reducing it to 50x would not cost them anything but a slight inconvenience. After they do that, maybe I will believe they are serious and not just fashionably posturing.
    • atoav 7y ago
      Well and I own a considerable amount of woods, don't own a car and do everything by bicycle including in the winter. My house is heated by a hydro-extracter and I live in a province where over 80% of the energy comes from water, so my personal carbon footprint is actually negative. But that isn't the point: comparing the individual carbon footprints of people to their mindset might be a jolly pastime for some, but the actual levers which really impact CO2 emissions are located at national, transnational and corporate levels and this is precisely where the biggest responsibilities lie. Everything that makes this look like a issue which can be fixed on a purely individual level is – I am afraid to say – making it worse. And we can ask ourselfs cui bono?
      • AstralStorm 7y ago
        Who owns those corporations, and is in government? Who can afford lobbyists? The answer is of course still super-rich.