3 ms·

I don't litter, no. But that's an example of a tiny and trivial change which has outsized impact. If no-one litters, it's not really that hard, and the world wo

by throwaway22032 5y ago

I don't litter, no. But that's an example of a tiny and trivial change which has outsized impact. If no-one litters, it's not really that hard, and the world would be super clean. This isn't at all comparable to the sorts of changes that are required to lower one's carbon footprint. You would have to take literally every single thing most of us do every second of every day and change it dramatically. I grow tired of having these debates online because it's just so frustrating, sorry. It's not a good faith debate because you're just bouncing between trivialities and non-trivialities. I use more than the global average just to heat my house. Like, that's _one thing_. And you can argue that I can change that, and I can. But my entire country is built with these houses. It's total and utter bollocks to pretend that some sort of 'culture of conservation' could change this. Technology might allow me to heat it without emitting CO2. Otherwise, we need to knock it all down and start again. I suspect we will, but not by choice.

bumby 5y ago
I'm sorry you don't feel it's in good faith; it absolutely is. Ironically, I feel you were underscoring this strawman of zero emissions when I've stated early on that shouldn't be the goal but I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were engaging in good faith. Littering was used as an example not because it's a trivial gotcha but because it's trivial enough to understand immediately. I think analogies work best that way. Your claim about an "outsized impact" is exactly what I'm talking about with climate being more abstract and thus harder to connect individual choices to impact. Littering only seems like an outsized impact because you can literally see it change over the course of days or weeks on a small enough scale we can wrap our minds around. IMO we need policy to drive these issues because we did not evolve to think on the scale of worldwide effects. That doesn't negate individual responsibility though. >But my entire country is built with these houses. It's total and utter bollocks to pretend that some sort of 'culture of conservation' could change this. Ok. Maybe that's fine for you. But please understand there are other parts of the world that are having these exact conversations. Some are limiting single family homes because they are inefficient. They recognize their previous assumptions have all kinds of externalities that need to be addressed. Interestingly, facility energy conservation is one of the easiest areas to make an impact. Maybe that doesn't fit with your culture but that may be, at least in part, about what your cultural values are. And one way of defending those values is to say "I'll wait for technology so I don't have to change." That's what my whole point is about. So if you're banking on technology so much have you actually done anything about it? Do you invest in companies that are working on that tech, or maybe quit your job to focus on ushering it into being? Or is that someone else's responsibility too so you wouldn't have to change the status quo? The world is full of people who are comfortable saying the big problems are someone else's problem. I'm saying those aren't the type of people I'd want my children to grow up to emulate. That means they would seek to take some ownership of the problem, even if it's on a small scale.
- throwaway22032 5y ago
  It's not "fine for me". I in fact do all of those other things that you're suggesting. And neither am I "banking on technology". There's no hedge, I'm just as fucked as you are. My original claim, which I stand by, is that individual action (in the sense of "just do fewer things") is trifling in the face of this. That's the only claim I'm making. I've explained why, and you're coming back with bullshit about my culture. Mate, it's not my 'culture' to eat food and put the heating on in my house, everyone does it in every country in the world. My argument is that we solve this politically and via collective action in things like basic research and development and not by joining support groups to tell each other about how many light switches we've turned off today.
  - bumby 5y ago
    We agree that policy is the best approach. But, the irony is that policy is needed because we can't rely on people to make the right choices at the individual level. While we agree that policy is helpful to wrangle bad actors, you seem to go one step further and insinuate it doesn't matter in the meantime if we all behave as bad actors. I get your pragmatic stance, I'm also saying there's a moral component to it. >it's not my 'culture' to eat food and put the heating on in my house, everyone does it in every country in the world. There's some irony in you claiming I'm acting in bad faith, yet you keep straw manning. I gave a specific example of housing zoning and you equate it to this? Your defensiveness is telling enough that I'll just leave one more comment. Yes, every culture needs food and shelter. But how they go about those things is very culture dependent. Some may get their protein primarily from pork and beef while others from tofu. Some may live in a McMansion, while others have multi-generational homes. Those cultural choices have an impact. Your comment about light switches is again bad faith attempt to trivialize salient points. An an example, residential energy use is higher on a CO2e basis than all of transport (road + aviation + shipping). It's actually higher than most sectors, save agricultural (barely) and industry. So let's just ignore all those, eh? Edit: I think you're having a hard time understanding my point and are reverting to straw manning. What I am NOT saying: "We need to have zero emissions." What I AM saying: "Just because we can't reach zero emissions doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything we can to get reasonably close" Inability to get to zero is not an excuse to absolve oneself of personal choices. If things are, in your words, properly "fucked" I'm assuming that means you're willing everything in your power to contribute to those big solutions. Are you willing to quit a high-status job to contribute? Or move to be part of an organization doing meaningful R&D? If not, there's some cognitive dissonance there.

bumby 5y ago

I'm sorry you don't feel it's in good faith; it absolutely is. Ironically, I feel you were underscoring this strawman of zero emissions when I've stated early on that shouldn't be the goal but I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were engaging in good faith. Littering was used as an example not because it's a trivial gotcha but because it's trivial enough to understand immediately. I think analogies work best that way. Your claim about an "outsized impact" is exactly what I'm talking about with climate being more abstract and thus harder to connect individual choices to impact. Littering only seems like an outsized impact because you can literally see it change over the course of days or weeks on a small enough scale we can wrap our minds around. IMO we need policy to drive these issues because we did not evolve to think on the scale of worldwide effects. That doesn't negate individual responsibility though. >But my entire country is built with these houses. It's total and utter bollocks to pretend that some sort of 'culture of conservation' could change this. Ok. Maybe that's fine for you. But please understand there are other parts of the world that are having these exact conversations. Some are limiting single family homes because they are inefficient. They recognize their previous assumptions have all kinds of externalities that need to be addressed. Interestingly, facility energy conservation is one of the easiest areas to make an impact. Maybe that doesn't fit with your culture but that may be, at least in part, about what your cultural values are. And one way of defending those values is to say "I'll wait for technology so I don't have to change." That's what my whole point is about. So if you're banking on technology so much have you actually done anything about it? Do you invest in companies that are working on that tech, or maybe quit your job to focus on ushering it into being? Or is that someone else's responsibility too so you wouldn't have to change the status quo? The world is full of people who are comfortable saying the big problems are someone else's problem. I'm saying those aren't the type of people I'd want my children to grow up to emulate. That means they would seek to take some ownership of the problem, even if it's on a small scale.

throwaway22032 5y ago
It's not "fine for me". I in fact do all of those other things that you're suggesting. And neither am I "banking on technology". There's no hedge, I'm just as fucked as you are. My original claim, which I stand by, is that individual action (in the sense of "just do fewer things") is trifling in the face of this. That's the only claim I'm making. I've explained why, and you're coming back with bullshit about my culture. Mate, it's not my 'culture' to eat food and put the heating on in my house, everyone does it in every country in the world. My argument is that we solve this politically and via collective action in things like basic research and development and not by joining support groups to tell each other about how many light switches we've turned off today.
- bumby 5y ago
  We agree that policy is the best approach. But, the irony is that policy is needed because we can't rely on people to make the right choices at the individual level. While we agree that policy is helpful to wrangle bad actors, you seem to go one step further and insinuate it doesn't matter in the meantime if we all behave as bad actors. I get your pragmatic stance, I'm also saying there's a moral component to it. >it's not my 'culture' to eat food and put the heating on in my house, everyone does it in every country in the world. There's some irony in you claiming I'm acting in bad faith, yet you keep straw manning. I gave a specific example of housing zoning and you equate it to this? Your defensiveness is telling enough that I'll just leave one more comment. Yes, every culture needs food and shelter. But how they go about those things is very culture dependent. Some may get their protein primarily from pork and beef while others from tofu. Some may live in a McMansion, while others have multi-generational homes. Those cultural choices have an impact. Your comment about light switches is again bad faith attempt to trivialize salient points. An an example, residential energy use is higher on a CO2e basis than all of transport (road + aviation + shipping). It's actually higher than most sectors, save agricultural (barely) and industry. So let's just ignore all those, eh? Edit: I think you're having a hard time understanding my point and are reverting to straw manning. What I am NOT saying: "We need to have zero emissions." What I AM saying: "Just because we can't reach zero emissions doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything we can to get reasonably close" Inability to get to zero is not an excuse to absolve oneself of personal choices. If things are, in your words, properly "fucked" I'm assuming that means you're willing everything in your power to contribute to those big solutions. Are you willing to quit a high-status job to contribute? Or move to be part of an organization doing meaningful R&D? If not, there's some cognitive dissonance there.