3 ms·
Or you could acknowledge that the rural folk will have to make more changes to their lifestyles than the city folk will in order to reduce emissions. Should th
by abraae 5y ago
Or you could acknowledge that the rural folk will have to make more changes to their lifestyles than the city folk will in order to reduce emissions.
Should they bear all the costs? No. The city folk are consumers for those products created by carbon intensive ag. They should pay too, in higher prices.
If you're all about doing whatever you're doing, and screw anyone who wants to tell you what to do, then yeah, go ahead and try and set up your sovereign fiefdom somewhere.
But expect some pushback from others who want to actually address these problems.
- renjimen 5y agoRural folk employed in industries such as agriculture and forestry are going to feel the effects of climate change the most. You'd think rural folk would be the ones fighting for climate action. Meanwhile, I don't think many urbanites in the retail or service sectors need to worry that their jobs will disappear with a changing climate, yet they're the ones voting for change. As someone who lives in Prince George, BC, the wilful disregard for the environment by the locals given the town's dependence on lumber is incredible.
- dropofwill 5y agoThe reality is just the opposite: urban areas produce the majority of greenhouse gases and consume the majority of energy.
- freedomben 5y agoIf GP doesn't want to be part of the country, and others in his area agree, why would you stop them? Do you not believe in consent of the governed?
- splitstud 5y agoYou won't BE addressing them in a city, you will be addressing them in a field or a mine. You will either have to live the standard of living you are apparently unwittingly espousing, or you won't be addressing what you see as the problem.