3 ms·

There is a problem and you can't do anything about it. We are way past the point where individual action is going to cut it. You have to vote. No other action i

There is a problem and you can't do anything about it. We are way past the point where individual action is going to cut it. You have to vote. No other action is going to have a meaningful impact and you shouldn't pretend otherwise because it makes you feel better about yourself.

chrisco255 7y ago
You going to vote out Xi Jinping?
- 0xffff2 7y ago
  Not being a Chinese citizen, there's very little I can do there (AFAIK there's not very much I could do if I was either). I certainly will vote for any politician that promises to put pressure on China to change their policies.
- Gupie 7y ago
  Elect a government that will ban imports from polluting countries.
- WA 7y ago
  China is actually also doing a lot pro-climate. Also, reading this as a German: I think the U. S. can do a lot first, before pointing their finger to China. Same for Germany btw., because we have similar discussions here as well like "why should we do anything? The US and China are the culprits". You can follow this logic all the way down to an individual level. If China doesn't do anyting, the US doesn't have to do anything either. If the US doesn't do anything, Germany doesn't have to do anything either. If not Germany, then not Munich. If not Munich, then not our little town. If not our neighbor, then me neither. Everybody and every country should do whatever they can. Will it be enough? Probably not. But you gotta start where you actually have some control.
- triceratops 7y ago
  Vote in politicians that will tariff any country that doesn't have carbon pricing.
coldpie 7y ago
You're right that individual action isn't enough. But individual action does also have an impact. Commuter cars and SUVs (not airplanes, not shipping trucks) are the largest single source of carbon emissions in the US[1], accounting for about 15% of all US carbon emissions[2]. If just 1 in 10 commuters switched to taking public transit instead of driving, that alone would drop US emissions by 1.5%. If public transit became the default method for most transportation, we could realistically lop off 7-10% of US emissions. These are individual choices. It's true local and federal governments could do more to encourage using public transit, but most of that action would be driven by increased demand, which comes from individuals. Don't fall into the trap that there's no reason to change your own habits because you think individual action doesn't matter. It does. But you're also right that it isn't enough. [1] US EPA, 2017, "The transportation sector generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. ... The largest sources of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions include passenger cars and light-duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans. These sources account for over half of the emissions from the transportation sector." https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#transportation https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... [2] Same source, 29% of emissions from Transportation; more than half that from commuter cars.
- 0xffff2 7y ago
  > If public transit became the default method for most transportation, we could realistically lop off 7-10% of US emissions. I honestly struggle to understand this statement in the context of discussing individual action. Making public transit a reasonable option for most personal transportation in the US would be a public works project on the scale of the New Deal. Perhaps more importantly, cutting US emissions by 10% is very nearly inconsequential unless it is part of a coordinated effort that is driving global emissions down by significantly more than 10%.
  - coldpie 7y ago
    > Making public transit a reasonable option for most personal transportation in the US would be a public works project on the scale of the New Deal. I don't agree. Most large-ish cities already have quite good public transportation networks, but outside of a couple special places like NYC, Chicago, and maybe SF, they're not the default option. If the demand is there, adding more bus routes and increasing frequency is trivial. Adding more rail and subway lines is definitely a major task, but we spend more on garbage like the TSA and the F-35 than we do on increasing public transit options; it's hardly a task on the order of the New Deal. My overall point is individual action is a major factor in transit emissions, which is a major source of carbon, and thus individual action does have an impact on our climate change future. The fact that individual action alone isn't enough to fix the problem isn't an excuse for individuals to avoid making choices to lower their emissions. > Perhaps more importantly, cutting US emissions by 10% is very nearly inconsequential unless it is part of a coordinated effort that is driving global emissions down by significantly more than 10%. I don't agree at all that decreasing US emissions by 10% is inconsequential[1], but yes, of course, it is not enough. I already agreed with you that individual action is not enough. But it is significant. I'm trying to back up that assertion with numbers. [1] Ten percent of US emissions is about 1.37% of global emissions, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
lacker 7y ago
You also shouldn't pretend that voting is going to solve the problem because it makes you feel better about yourself. I agree that recycling a single aluminum can isn't going to make a big difference. But it could very well make a bigger difference than a single vote.

chrisco255 7y ago

You going to vote out Xi Jinping?

0xffff2 7y ago
Not being a Chinese citizen, there's very little I can do there (AFAIK there's not very much I could do if I was either). I certainly will vote for any politician that promises to put pressure on China to change their policies.
Gupie 7y ago
Elect a government that will ban imports from polluting countries.
WA 7y ago
China is actually also doing a lot pro-climate. Also, reading this as a German: I think the U. S. can do a lot first, before pointing their finger to China. Same for Germany btw., because we have similar discussions here as well like "why should we do anything? The US and China are the culprits". You can follow this logic all the way down to an individual level. If China doesn't do anyting, the US doesn't have to do anything either. If the US doesn't do anything, Germany doesn't have to do anything either. If not Germany, then not Munich. If not Munich, then not our little town. If not our neighbor, then me neither. Everybody and every country should do whatever they can. Will it be enough? Probably not. But you gotta start where you actually have some control.
triceratops 7y ago
Vote in politicians that will tariff any country that doesn't have carbon pricing.

coldpie 7y ago

You're right that individual action isn't enough. But individual action does also have an impact. Commuter cars and SUVs (not airplanes, not shipping trucks) are the largest single source of carbon emissions in the US[1], accounting for about 15% of all US carbon emissions[2]. If just 1 in 10 commuters switched to taking public transit instead of driving, that alone would drop US emissions by 1.5%. If public transit became the default method for most transportation, we could realistically lop off 7-10% of US emissions. These are individual choices. It's true local and federal governments could do more to encourage using public transit, but most of that action would be driven by increased demand, which comes from individuals. Don't fall into the trap that there's no reason to change your own habits because you think individual action doesn't matter. It does. But you're also right that it isn't enough. [1] US EPA, 2017, "The transportation sector generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. ... The largest sources of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions include passenger cars and light-duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans. These sources account for over half of the emissions from the transportation sector." https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#transportation https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... [2] Same source, 29% of emissions from Transportation; more than half that from commuter cars.

0xffff2 7y ago
> If public transit became the default method for most transportation, we could realistically lop off 7-10% of US emissions. I honestly struggle to understand this statement in the context of discussing individual action. Making public transit a reasonable option for most personal transportation in the US would be a public works project on the scale of the New Deal. Perhaps more importantly, cutting US emissions by 10% is very nearly inconsequential unless it is part of a coordinated effort that is driving global emissions down by significantly more than 10%.
- coldpie 7y ago
  > Making public transit a reasonable option for most personal transportation in the US would be a public works project on the scale of the New Deal. I don't agree. Most large-ish cities already have quite good public transportation networks, but outside of a couple special places like NYC, Chicago, and maybe SF, they're not the default option. If the demand is there, adding more bus routes and increasing frequency is trivial. Adding more rail and subway lines is definitely a major task, but we spend more on garbage like the TSA and the F-35 than we do on increasing public transit options; it's hardly a task on the order of the New Deal. My overall point is individual action is a major factor in transit emissions, which is a major source of carbon, and thus individual action does have an impact on our climate change future. The fact that individual action alone isn't enough to fix the problem isn't an excuse for individuals to avoid making choices to lower their emissions. > Perhaps more importantly, cutting US emissions by 10% is very nearly inconsequential unless it is part of a coordinated effort that is driving global emissions down by significantly more than 10%. I don't agree at all that decreasing US emissions by 10% is inconsequential[1], but yes, of course, it is not enough. I already agreed with you that individual action is not enough. But it is significant. I'm trying to back up that assertion with numbers. [1] Ten percent of US emissions is about 1.37% of global emissions, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

lacker 7y ago

You also shouldn't pretend that voting is going to solve the problem because it makes you feel better about yourself. I agree that recycling a single aluminum can isn't going to make a big difference. But it could very well make a bigger difference than a single vote.