4 ms·

> 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

by 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".

by sho 7y ago

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".