4 ms·

However, individual impacts are irrelevant. See the case of the UK. It makes up 1% or less of global carbon emissions. It doesn't matter how much the average B

However, individual impacts are irrelevant. See the case of the UK. It makes up 1% or less of global carbon emissions. It doesn't matter how much the average Brit does to reduce their personal carbon impact, it will all amount to nothing. Therefore, they should stop worrying and forget about it - but "society" (really, the media/public sector classes) won't let them.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
>It makes up 1% or less of global carbon emissions. It doesn't matter how much the average Brit does to reduce their personal carbon impact, it will all amount to nothing. I think this is a bad take, and at the center of the climate discussion. If the UK's 1% is irrelevant, than each other 1% that add up to 100 are also irrelevant. This is obviously not true, 1% is not 0%. There is a meaningful difference between being unable to solve a problem by yourself and being irrelevant. The fact that I can not do something alone, does not mean that it can not be done. This is a classic prisoners' dilemma. You can never reach 100% without each 1% contributing. If they all do, it adds up, if they don't, it won't. You can make a different arguments that the world could reduce carbon emissions 99% without UK cooperating, or that the UK shouldn't go first, or that it isn't worth trying the whole effort is likely to fail, but these are all a different points than the UK is irrelevant.
- native_samples 5y ago
  China and India makes up most of it and they don't care, nor are they going to care any time soon. So UK is in fact irrelevant. It could reduce carbon emissions to zero (impossible in any reasonable time frame), and nobody would even notice. Nor would setting an example encourage big emitters to change, if anything it'd discourage them as they'd see that net zero = poverty, and poverty is the thing they're trying to solve, not create more of.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    So I hear 2 positions: 1) Global reductions are doomed to failure, so the UK should not do their part. 2) It is more effective to continue to emit carbon emissions to encourage china and India to implement reductions
    - native_samples 5y ago
      Well, there are actually a whole lot of positions other than those two, like: 3) The UK has already done its part: it's well ahead of other countries in terms of carbon reduction. So now it can stop creating new problems by trying to reduce it further. 4) There is no such thing as a country "doing its part" because that's false collectivism: tens of millions of people that happen to inhabit the same island don't all have some sort of shared responsibility to the "world" regardless of what globalists might want. 5) The whole thing is irrelevant anyway because the problem is way over-hyped, current mitigation measures are plenty sufficient and China/India will naturally de-carbonize as they get richer anyway. etc etc. Many of these positions are more future-positive than the one the media force feeds us all the time, of course.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

>It makes up 1% or less of global carbon emissions. It doesn't matter how much the average Brit does to reduce their personal carbon impact, it will all amount to nothing. I think this is a bad take, and at the center of the climate discussion. If the UK's 1% is irrelevant, than each other 1% that add up to 100 are also irrelevant. This is obviously not true, 1% is not 0%. There is a meaningful difference between being unable to solve a problem by yourself and being irrelevant. The fact that I can not do something alone, does not mean that it can not be done. This is a classic prisoners' dilemma. You can never reach 100% without each 1% contributing. If they all do, it adds up, if they don't, it won't. You can make a different arguments that the world could reduce carbon emissions 99% without UK cooperating, or that the UK shouldn't go first, or that it isn't worth trying the whole effort is likely to fail, but these are all a different points than the UK is irrelevant.

native_samples 5y ago
China and India makes up most of it and they don't care, nor are they going to care any time soon. So UK is in fact irrelevant. It could reduce carbon emissions to zero (impossible in any reasonable time frame), and nobody would even notice. Nor would setting an example encourage big emitters to change, if anything it'd discourage them as they'd see that net zero = poverty, and poverty is the thing they're trying to solve, not create more of.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  So I hear 2 positions: 1) Global reductions are doomed to failure, so the UK should not do their part. 2) It is more effective to continue to emit carbon emissions to encourage china and India to implement reductions
  - native_samples 5y ago
    Well, there are actually a whole lot of positions other than those two, like: 3) The UK has already done its part: it's well ahead of other countries in terms of carbon reduction. So now it can stop creating new problems by trying to reduce it further. 4) There is no such thing as a country "doing its part" because that's false collectivism: tens of millions of people that happen to inhabit the same island don't all have some sort of shared responsibility to the "world" regardless of what globalists might want. 5) The whole thing is irrelevant anyway because the problem is way over-hyped, current mitigation measures are plenty sufficient and China/India will naturally de-carbonize as they get richer anyway. etc etc. Many of these positions are more future-positive than the one the media force feeds us all the time, of course.