5 ms·

That's because the voters don't want to change their live styles. There are many things (rich country) people can do (buy used clothes/things, eat less meat, sm

That's because the voters don't want to change their live styles. There are many things (rich country) people can do (buy used clothes/things, eat less meat, smaller/no car, smaller house, green energy, less flying on holidays ...) but they don't -- grandparents buying new SUVs to shuttle around their grandchildren, oh the irony -- and the IPCC will announce on Monday that reality has progressed worse than assumed. Politicians don't make the climate, consumers are - consume driven climate crisis.

notadev 5y ago
Even if all of the citizens of the US did what you said tomorrow, would it really make a difference with China producing (as of 2015) 29.4% of all CO2 emissions? Even if the US (at 14.3%) somehow cut emissions to zero, there are still the not-so-rich countries that comprise the “Other” group that is responsible for 31.5%. Your feelings are valid, you may just be directing them at the wrong culprits IMHO. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_...
- creamytaco 5y ago
  Those figures are hard to attribute correctly because they don’t account for export manufacturing. Consumption in the USA is fueling Chinese exports and is responsible for a large chunk of their CO2 emissions.
eloisius 5y ago
And that's why politicians can and should enact laws that tax these externalities at the industry level. Cars might appear to cost more once the manufacturers pass on the tax to consumers, but that's just because you aren't accounting for the real cost of it destroying the environment when you buy one.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- loonster 5y ago
  Need to also add in wage and environmental parity tariffs. There is no point having higher standards here if it means China will use the higher costs as a competitive advantage while still polluting the same amount.
0xdeadb00f 5y ago
Companies motivated purely by capital are the only ones truly responsible for all this, and are subsequently the ones who can make the biggest changes to undo what they've done. Consumers have much less control over all of this than you seem to think.
- KingOfCoders 5y ago
  [Edit] Voting me down gives me so much pleasure, it proves my world view. Thanks to all the downvoters, you've made my day. And don't we all just want to feel validated. Consumers have all of the control. Don't eat meat. Switch to a green energy provider. Buy small car. Move to a smaller house. Buy used clothes. Use your phone longer. Consume less! With all of this there is no climate crisis. Growing up in Germany, I understand your opinion. No one wants to take personal responsibility. After WW2 no one in Germany was responsible for anything. WW2 just happened. The others did it. I followed orders. This opinion changed when people grew up who were born after WW2 which lead to a cultural revolution. The same will happen with the climate crisis. Children born now will hold current consumers responsible in the future - and they will be angry with their parents and grandparents.
  - klipt 5y ago
    No really, corporations consume way more than individuals. I work for one and their consumption per employee is easily higher than my individual consumption. If you want to change the world, change the incentives. Tax CO2 released from fossil fuels appropriately (enough to offset the effects completely) and everything will adjust thanks to the magic of the market.
    - KingOfCoders 5y ago
      "No really, corporations consume way more than individuals" Which ones? What corporations consume more energy that do not produce things consumers buy? If you buy a car, the corporation is using up energy, but for you, to build your car. They don't consume the energy for themselves. Facebook uses energy? Yes so you can consume Facebook.
adrianN 5y ago
Politicians make all kinds of laws that the voters don't really want. Usually when the lobbyists want them.
bookofsand 5y ago
While the SUV-driving crowd is stomach churning, it is also small in the big picture. The huge elephant in the room is global population size, moving apace toward 10 billions and possibly beyond. Industrializing 10 billion people turns out to be a very dirty business. If US were to ban ICE cars and truck and switch go horse-and-buggy tomorrow, it will save 29% of US emissions. US accounts for 15% of global emissions. Thus the overall global savings will be 4.35%, or about 1.44 GT CO2/year. Fantastic. Yet 95.65% of emissions will still be going out every year. In 20 years, emissions have grown from 25 GT CO2/year to 36 GT CO2/year, or about .5 GT CO2 / year. The whole 4.35% savings would turn out to be a minor blip, overtaken in about 3 years by new emissions elsewhere in the developing world. We are already 40+% above Paris agreement 1.5C emissions levels of 25 GT CO2/year. We need deep cuts on massive scale. If the world were even remotely serious about tackling CO2 emissions for a rough but perhaps survivable crash landing, we'd see: * World wide moratorium on building new coal/gas/oil power plants and ICE vehicles. * World wide moratorium on economic growth. Good bye lifting the third world out of poverty. Good bye western retirement. * Gradual phasing out of industry in developed countries. Good bye middle class lifestyle. * Ban of immigration from low emission countries into high emission countries. https://www.c2es.org/content/u-s-emissions https://www.c2es.org/content/u-s-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emis...
FranzFerdiNaN 5y ago
You’re being a useful idiot for companies: put all blame and responsibility on individuals and you can easily shift away all blame from companies. But do you know what really works? Banning F-gases. Banning non-electric cars. Mandating new houses to be energy-neutral. Regulations at national or continental level are infinitely more effective than shaming individuals for not buying solar panels or whatever. Don’t let companies follow demand from consumers, let consumer only buy stuff that won’t destroy our only world.

notadev 5y ago

Even if all of the citizens of the US did what you said tomorrow, would it really make a difference with China producing (as of 2015) 29.4% of all CO2 emissions? Even if the US (at 14.3%) somehow cut emissions to zero, there are still the not-so-rich countries that comprise the “Other” group that is responsible for 31.5%. Your feelings are valid, you may just be directing them at the wrong culprits IMHO. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_...

creamytaco 5y ago
Those figures are hard to attribute correctly because they don’t account for export manufacturing. Consumption in the USA is fueling Chinese exports and is responsible for a large chunk of their CO2 emissions.

eloisius 5y ago

And that's why politicians can and should enact laws that tax these externalities at the industry level. Cars might appear to cost more once the manufacturers pass on the tax to consumers, but that's just because you aren't accounting for the real cost of it destroying the environment when you buy one.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
loonster 5y ago
Need to also add in wage and environmental parity tariffs. There is no point having higher standards here if it means China will use the higher costs as a competitive advantage while still polluting the same amount.

0xdeadb00f 5y ago

Companies motivated purely by capital are the only ones truly responsible for all this, and are subsequently the ones who can make the biggest changes to undo what they've done. Consumers have much less control over all of this than you seem to think.

KingOfCoders 5y ago
[Edit] Voting me down gives me so much pleasure, it proves my world view. Thanks to all the downvoters, you've made my day. And don't we all just want to feel validated. Consumers have all of the control. Don't eat meat. Switch to a green energy provider. Buy small car. Move to a smaller house. Buy used clothes. Use your phone longer. Consume less! With all of this there is no climate crisis. Growing up in Germany, I understand your opinion. No one wants to take personal responsibility. After WW2 no one in Germany was responsible for anything. WW2 just happened. The others did it. I followed orders. This opinion changed when people grew up who were born after WW2 which lead to a cultural revolution. The same will happen with the climate crisis. Children born now will hold current consumers responsible in the future - and they will be angry with their parents and grandparents.
- klipt 5y ago
  No really, corporations consume way more than individuals. I work for one and their consumption per employee is easily higher than my individual consumption. If you want to change the world, change the incentives. Tax CO2 released from fossil fuels appropriately (enough to offset the effects completely) and everything will adjust thanks to the magic of the market.
  - KingOfCoders 5y ago
    "No really, corporations consume way more than individuals" Which ones? What corporations consume more energy that do not produce things consumers buy? If you buy a car, the corporation is using up energy, but for you, to build your car. They don't consume the energy for themselves. Facebook uses energy? Yes so you can consume Facebook.

adrianN 5y ago

Politicians make all kinds of laws that the voters don't really want. Usually when the lobbyists want them.

bookofsand 5y ago

While the SUV-driving crowd is stomach churning, it is also small in the big picture. The huge elephant in the room is global population size, moving apace toward 10 billions and possibly beyond. Industrializing 10 billion people turns out to be a very dirty business. If US were to ban ICE cars and truck and switch go horse-and-buggy tomorrow, it will save 29% of US emissions. US accounts for 15% of global emissions. Thus the overall global savings will be 4.35%, or about 1.44 GT CO2/year. Fantastic. Yet 95.65% of emissions will still be going out every year. In 20 years, emissions have grown from 25 GT CO2/year to 36 GT CO2/year, or about .5 GT CO2 / year. The whole 4.35% savings would turn out to be a minor blip, overtaken in about 3 years by new emissions elsewhere in the developing world. We are already 40+% above Paris agreement 1.5C emissions levels of 25 GT CO2/year. We need deep cuts on massive scale. If the world were even remotely serious about tackling CO2 emissions for a rough but perhaps survivable crash landing, we'd see: * World wide moratorium on building new coal/gas/oil power plants and ICE vehicles. * World wide moratorium on economic growth. Good bye lifting the third world out of poverty. Good bye western retirement. * Gradual phasing out of industry in developed countries. Good bye middle class lifestyle. * Ban of immigration from low emission countries into high emission countries. https://www.c2es.org/content/u-s-emissions https://www.c2es.org/content/u-s-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emis...

FranzFerdiNaN 5y ago

You’re being a useful idiot for companies: put all blame and responsibility on individuals and you can easily shift away all blame from companies. But do you know what really works? Banning F-gases. Banning non-electric cars. Mandating new houses to be energy-neutral. Regulations at national or continental level are infinitely more effective than shaming individuals for not buying solar panels or whatever. Don’t let companies follow demand from consumers, let consumer only buy stuff that won’t destroy our only world.