3 ms·
I have a hard time taking this suggestion seriously, because it amounts to asking everyone to give up every material pleasure with no actual sense of the degree
by throwaway894345 5y ago
I have a hard time taking this suggestion seriously, because it amounts to asking everyone to give up every material pleasure with no actual sense of the degree to which it harms the environment, particularly when we could instead change the system to produce things with minimal harm to the environment. But again, I recognize that's no fun for the folks whose identity is wrapped up in sacrificing "for the environment". It's politically impossible, there's everything to lose, and there's nothing to gain over a carbon pricing scheme.
That said, if I were in charge of Exxon's marketing apparatus, I would absolutely campaign to get people to think that they could personal-responsibility their way out of this problem. Go environmentalists! You can do it! Put your back into it!
- Syonyk 5y ago> ...particularly when we could instead change the system to produce things with minimal harm to the environment. Hold on, you're shifting your posts here somewhat. Minimal carbon emissions, or minimal harm to the environment? They're not the same thing, and minimizing one may or may not minimize the other in the process.
- throwaway894345 5y agoI'm operating on the assumption that GHG emissions are overwhelmingly the largest threat to the environment (and thus human civilization) such that minimizing emissions and minimizing harm to the environment are functionally the same thing. I don't know of any serious emissions-reducing proposals which would actually do more harm to the environment than maintaining our emissions trajectory.