3 ms·

I never said you were jealous. I said you sound like you're envious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPhrTOg1RUk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPhrTOg1RUk - m

I never said you were jealous. I said you sound like you're envious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPhrTOg1RUk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPhrTOg1RUk - maybe watch this (it is quite enjoyable!) and it could change your mind about how you think of envy. Heat pumps just move heat around... They do not create heat. If they did - we'd have some violations of laws. All they're doing is going to transfer geothermal, solar, wind, etc. power into heat transfer - which is transferring heat from outdoors into your home... Which then goes back outdoors at some point. There isn't any "heat" creation here. What model are you speaking of where they claim electric cars are not viable for the future? (Assuming renewable energy sources and sustainable use of natural resources, etc.)

emodendroket 5y ago
I'm not watching a 2-hour video to figure out what you think the distinction between jealousy and envy is. The point is, I'm living the same lifestyle as many other Americans but I'm not sure we can do it forever. I'm not going to dispute the point about heat pumps more because I don't know enough about them to argue credibly about it. Maybe you're right and it's a perfect solution to the problem. > What model are you speaking of where they claim electric cars are not viable for the future? (Assuming renewable energy sources and sustainable use of natural resources, etc.) That assumes away the problem I think. Is it really inconceivable that we're going to start hitting limits to resources, especially if we're doubling down on cars which all have their own large batteries, sprawling asphalt, and all the rest of it? It seems really hard to imagine to me that we're going to chance on technology that makes it just as sustainable for everyone to live in a McMansion and drive an F-150 an hour to work as for people to ride trains or bicycles and live in denser housing. Certainly we could do much better than now before we started to nip at that stuff but I feel like there have to be limits. If it's so easy and we have all the answers I have to wonder why all the kicking and screaming to get there.
- bradlys 5y ago
  It doesn't assume away the problem. It is the problem. The issue isn't the lifestyle. The issue is how the resources are gathered and how the power is produced. Those are the issues - the lifestyle isn't the issue. You have been sucked into believing by corporations that you are the issue but it's the corporations who are the issue. They want you to take personal responsibility for their issues. Everything is pushed onto the end user and the individual as responsibility rather than a corporation to do things in a manner that is best for us all. You know why? Cause that's good for the corporations! They can do horrible things and not have to deal with any of the externalities that they're creating and rake in the profit! These strategies have been mainstream for well over 50 years now. Keep believing that personal responsibility is really the key to solving climate change but it will continue to do nothing and mean nothing. The responsibility is within your governmental body to take over how corporations are producing their products, harvesting resources, generating power, and the externalities that their products create.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    It's true that "personal responsibility" is a bad framework that lets the corporations off the hook. But it's also true that when people say "the top 100 corporations do 80% of emissions," or whatever the number is, that they're washing their hands of a problem they contribute to, pretending like the corporations are extracting oil and natural gas for the hell of it and not because we're all buying these products to support our lifestyles.
    - bradlys 5y ago
      > to, pretending like the corporations are extracting oil and natural gas for the hell of it and not because we're all buying these products to support our lifestyles. Do you really think it's a coincidence that the products sold to you are not environmentally-friendly/sustainable/whatever? It's not because consumers demand them... Consumers just want something cheap... But consumers aren't paying for externalities upfront... neither are corps... No one pays. Thus, cheaper. You offer two comparable products but one is cheaper - people choose the cheaper one! On top of that, our world and economy is built on these natural resources. Imagine if oil became $0 or $1000/barrel. It'd wreck certain parts of the economy either way - there is a heavy investment and lobbying infrastructure built upon maintaining the status quo. You really are using the personal responsibility framework to a high extent. Corps are the biggest issue. Most issues of CO2 generators and other such things - people are very happy to use their replacements because there is very little difference in quality of life (sometimes it's even improved). The things people most want that create CO2 and there's no way around it ever are very low contributors to CO2 overall. You could easily wipe out over half of CO2 emissions in USA by just converting everything to renewable energy resources. (electric cars + electricity production + using heat pumps)
      - emodendroket 5y ago
        I used to think this way but I’ve come to suspect that it was a viewpoint attractive to me and others because it was soothing more than right.

emodendroket 5y ago

I'm not watching a 2-hour video to figure out what you think the distinction between jealousy and envy is. The point is, I'm living the same lifestyle as many other Americans but I'm not sure we can do it forever. I'm not going to dispute the point about heat pumps more because I don't know enough about them to argue credibly about it. Maybe you're right and it's a perfect solution to the problem. > What model are you speaking of where they claim electric cars are not viable for the future? (Assuming renewable energy sources and sustainable use of natural resources, etc.) That assumes away the problem I think. Is it really inconceivable that we're going to start hitting limits to resources, especially if we're doubling down on cars which all have their own large batteries, sprawling asphalt, and all the rest of it? It seems really hard to imagine to me that we're going to chance on technology that makes it just as sustainable for everyone to live in a McMansion and drive an F-150 an hour to work as for people to ride trains or bicycles and live in denser housing. Certainly we could do much better than now before we started to nip at that stuff but I feel like there have to be limits. If it's so easy and we have all the answers I have to wonder why all the kicking and screaming to get there.

bradlys 5y ago
It doesn't assume away the problem. It is the problem. The issue isn't the lifestyle. The issue is how the resources are gathered and how the power is produced. Those are the issues - the lifestyle isn't the issue. You have been sucked into believing by corporations that you are the issue but it's the corporations who are the issue. They want you to take personal responsibility for their issues. Everything is pushed onto the end user and the individual as responsibility rather than a corporation to do things in a manner that is best for us all. You know why? Cause that's good for the corporations! They can do horrible things and not have to deal with any of the externalities that they're creating and rake in the profit! These strategies have been mainstream for well over 50 years now. Keep believing that personal responsibility is really the key to solving climate change but it will continue to do nothing and mean nothing. The responsibility is within your governmental body to take over how corporations are producing their products, harvesting resources, generating power, and the externalities that their products create.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  It's true that "personal responsibility" is a bad framework that lets the corporations off the hook. But it's also true that when people say "the top 100 corporations do 80% of emissions," or whatever the number is, that they're washing their hands of a problem they contribute to, pretending like the corporations are extracting oil and natural gas for the hell of it and not because we're all buying these products to support our lifestyles.
  - bradlys 5y ago
    > to, pretending like the corporations are extracting oil and natural gas for the hell of it and not because we're all buying these products to support our lifestyles. Do you really think it's a coincidence that the products sold to you are not environmentally-friendly/sustainable/whatever? It's not because consumers demand them... Consumers just want something cheap... But consumers aren't paying for externalities upfront... neither are corps... No one pays. Thus, cheaper. You offer two comparable products but one is cheaper - people choose the cheaper one! On top of that, our world and economy is built on these natural resources. Imagine if oil became $0 or $1000/barrel. It'd wreck certain parts of the economy either way - there is a heavy investment and lobbying infrastructure built upon maintaining the status quo. You really are using the personal responsibility framework to a high extent. Corps are the biggest issue. Most issues of CO2 generators and other such things - people are very happy to use their replacements because there is very little difference in quality of life (sometimes it's even improved). The things people most want that create CO2 and there's no way around it ever are very low contributors to CO2 overall. You could easily wipe out over half of CO2 emissions in USA by just converting everything to renewable energy resources. (electric cars + electricity production + using heat pumps)
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      I used to think this way but I’ve come to suspect that it was a viewpoint attractive to me and others because it was soothing more than right.