5 ms·

This is a counterproductive attitude. If you pit climate responsibility against people living their lives, climate responsibility will lose, full stop. In the

This is a counterproductive attitude. If you pit climate responsibility against people living their lives, climate responsibility will lose, full stop. In the short term, human beings are the way they are, and you won't be able to change human nature before the climate is destroyed. People offsetting their consumption is way, way better than people saying "If you just want me to suffer, fuck it. I'm going to embrace being an asshole and do what I want." For example, I'm going to throw some logs on the fireplace over Christmas. I can either find a way to offset my emissions elsewhere, or just say fuck it, those environmentalists are assholes so screw them. It's probably better for both of us if I donate, because not having a fire is off the table.

Razengan 6y ago
At some point someone with more money than you is saying fuck it, their comfort is more important than yours, and you’re just going to have to suck it up.
TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
> I can either find a way to offset my emissions elsewhere, or just say fuck it, You could also, you know, not burn firewood? There’s a reason no home built in the last 20 years in many states do not have wood-burning fireplaces.
- scrollaway 6y ago
  You're making the GPs point quite nicely, in that it absolutely doesn't sound like it's worth dealing with you, and it's making me want to throw my hands in the air and say "fuck it, if I try to offset my emissions I'll just get whiners like TedDoesntTalk all up in my face, so i might as well not offset anything". You're making things worse. So, from one fellow environmentalist to another, keep it to yourself, for the good of the planet.
- webmaven 6y ago
  > > I can either find a way to offset my emissions elsewhere, or just say fuck it, > You could also, you know, not burn firewood? You apparently missed where he literally said: > > because not having a fire is off the table.
  - madaxe_again 6y ago
    It’s 3 degrees C in my house at the moment, because having a fire is off the table. I wear a jacket indoors. It’s cozy. It’s going to get a damn sight colder before winter is over. That’s fine. I have gloves and hats, too - and even a 160W electric blanket for when it’s Baltic - all our energy is renewable, produced here. It’s a great incentive for me to build out hydroelectric dump heating sooner rather than later. I guess it’s every man’s right to burn a barrel of diesel in their yard “for the traditional effect” or whatever, though, and that’s why 2020 will be looked back at with fond memories before you know it.
- vagrantJin 6y ago
  They've been replaced with internal heating which may use electricity or in some cases Gas. Not for reducing emissions as much as it's cleaner for the house and getting/buying firewood is schlep.
amscanne 6y ago
There’s significant evidence of a “rebound effect” when people are given the chance to signal their virtue or pay off their guilt somehow. That is, they feel justified in behaving worse than they otherwise would have (in this case, burning more logs than you would have without the offsets). This is a well established physiological phenomenon, though I’m not sure to the extent it has been studied with respect to carbon offsets. So if carbon offsets don’t work well (which I think there is also significant skepticism about), then the net effect here is negative. On balance, it’s probably positive but I don’t think you can make a blanket assertion that skepticism here is counterproductive — it seems quite warranted.
- sundarurfriend 6y ago
  > There’s significant evidence of a “rebound effect” when people are given the chance to signal their virtue or pay off their guilt somehow. That is, they feel justified in behaving worse than they otherwise would have Wikipedia article on rebound effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation)

Razengan 6y ago

At some point someone with more money than you is saying fuck it, their comfort is more important than yours, and you’re just going to have to suck it up.

TedDoesntTalk 6y ago

> I can either find a way to offset my emissions elsewhere, or just say fuck it, You could also, you know, not burn firewood? There’s a reason no home built in the last 20 years in many states do not have wood-burning fireplaces.

scrollaway 6y ago
You're making the GPs point quite nicely, in that it absolutely doesn't sound like it's worth dealing with you, and it's making me want to throw my hands in the air and say "fuck it, if I try to offset my emissions I'll just get whiners like TedDoesntTalk all up in my face, so i might as well not offset anything". You're making things worse. So, from one fellow environmentalist to another, keep it to yourself, for the good of the planet.
webmaven 6y ago
> > I can either find a way to offset my emissions elsewhere, or just say fuck it, > You could also, you know, not burn firewood? You apparently missed where he literally said: > > because not having a fire is off the table.
- madaxe_again 6y ago
  It’s 3 degrees C in my house at the moment, because having a fire is off the table. I wear a jacket indoors. It’s cozy. It’s going to get a damn sight colder before winter is over. That’s fine. I have gloves and hats, too - and even a 160W electric blanket for when it’s Baltic - all our energy is renewable, produced here. It’s a great incentive for me to build out hydroelectric dump heating sooner rather than later. I guess it’s every man’s right to burn a barrel of diesel in their yard “for the traditional effect” or whatever, though, and that’s why 2020 will be looked back at with fond memories before you know it.
vagrantJin 6y ago
They've been replaced with internal heating which may use electricity or in some cases Gas. Not for reducing emissions as much as it's cleaner for the house and getting/buying firewood is schlep.

amscanne 6y ago

There’s significant evidence of a “rebound effect” when people are given the chance to signal their virtue or pay off their guilt somehow. That is, they feel justified in behaving worse than they otherwise would have (in this case, burning more logs than you would have without the offsets). This is a well established physiological phenomenon, though I’m not sure to the extent it has been studied with respect to carbon offsets. So if carbon offsets don’t work well (which I think there is also significant skepticism about), then the net effect here is negative. On balance, it’s probably positive but I don’t think you can make a blanket assertion that skepticism here is counterproductive — it seems quite warranted.

sundarurfriend 6y ago
> There’s significant evidence of a “rebound effect” when people are given the chance to signal their virtue or pay off their guilt somehow. That is, they feel justified in behaving worse than they otherwise would have Wikipedia article on rebound effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation)