3 ms·
It’s not the act itself, it’s the fact that there is a segment of the population that will spend thousands of dollars to modify their cars to pollute more, so t
by orf 5y ago
It’s not the act itself, it’s the fact that there is a segment of the population that will spend thousands of dollars to modify their cars to pollute more, so that they can try and humiliate people driving hybrid and electric cars.
That’s a symptom of a much, much deeper problem.
- cryptoz 5y agoSee also, exhibit B, https://twitter.com/colinaverill/status/1414273471853514756 https://twitter.com/colinaverill/status/1414273471853514756 "Okay apparently in Texas we have moved past climate denial within the oil and gas industry to outright CHEERING ON THE RCP 8.5 APOCALYPSE"
- cure 5y ago"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein. Unfortunately, this is nothing new.
- rootusrootus 5y ago> so that they can try and humiliate people driving hybrid and electric cars I don't think that's really what they're trying to do. It looks more like garden variety virtue signaling. Just like flags in the back of the truck, etc. They're announcing membership in their tribe. I do wish they'd choose something that didn't pollute the air we all breathe.
- orf 5y agoOk then, people spending thousands of dollars to make their cars less fuel efficient and pollute more. It’s the same point. That doesn’t exist anywhere else in the world. It’s ridiculous. But the fact it exists in the country with the largest per-person capita of CO2 emissions points to a huge underlying social problem that is unlikely to be fixed in the near future.
- gruez 5y ago>But the fact it exists in the country with the largest per-person capita of CO2 emissions I have a feeling that you're not talking about all the people rolling coal in Palau. US isn't even in the top 10 when it comes to carbon emissions per capita. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
- orf 5y agoOr the Falkland Islands, population 3,000. They are the real problem! The combined populations of the small states above you don’t even reach 1/3rd of the USA’s population.
- gruez 5y agoI'm not saying it's not a problem, just that you have a factual error in your comment.
- dprice1 5y ago> US isn't even in the top 10 when it comes to carbon emissions per capita I think you are correct when we use this very narrow measure. However, please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_th... The US is (a) among largest polluters and (b) from that club it is up at or near the top of per-capita pollution. Quoting the article: The United States produced 6.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2019,[3] the second largest in the world after greenhouse gas emissions by China and among the countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions per person. In 2019 China is estimated to have emitted 27% of world GhG, followed by the United States with 11%, then India with 6.6%.[4] In total the United States has emitted 400 billion metric tons, more than any other country.[5] This is over 15 tonnes per person and, amongst the top ten emitters, is the second highest country by greenhouse gas emissions per person after Canada.[6] Because coal-fired power stations are gradually shutting down, in the 2010s emissions from electricity generation fell to second place behind transportation which is now the largest single source.[7] In 2019, 29% of the GHG emissions of the United States were from transportation, 25% from electricity, 23% from industry, 13% from commercial and residential buildings and 10% from agriculture.[8]
- lp251 5y agoDunno, they sure are eager to roll coal when they pass cyclists (myself included). Really cool people.
- bpodgursky 5y agoI mean, sure, it's dumb, but choosing to take a weekend flight to Vail to hit the slopes emits more carbon than a year of rolling coal, and nobody is seriously trying to crack down on recreational travel. I think the deeper problem is that even "concerned" people have emissions deeply baked into their lifestyles but don't realize it because they check all the right cosmetic boxes.
- Jtsummers 5y agoI think you missed GP's point. Rolling coal itself is not the problem, but it is indicative of a larger systemic and cultural problem. When people are willing to deliberately pollute their local environment to "stick it to the man" or whatever, then there are a lot of other policies and changes that they will never consider or support. And a lot of other, more impactful, actions that they are likely to participate in as well. Even if we can get the average person to consider emission reducing behaviors and policies, the rolling coal people represent the visible segment of a larger group who would stand to oppose those.
- bpodgursky 5y agoYes, and I'm not sure it's worse than the people who think they've already done enough (but in practice have comparable emissions to those who don't care).
- jgwil2 5y agoBecause those who erroneously believe they've done enough are more likely to change their behavior when confronted with new information.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y agoDoes it matter? Don't you have guns? Shoot them off the road, FFS!
- IncRnd 5y agoIt seems somewhat off-center to think that people who roll-coal are motivated by a desire to humiliate drivers of hyrid or electric cars.