14 ms·
Many people have hobbies that drive CO2 emissions. Should we ban all of these too?
by 55873445216111 5y ago
Many people have hobbies that drive CO2 emissions. Should we ban all of these too?
- twelvechairs 5y agoWhat hobbies are you referring to specifically?
- onetokeoverthe 5y ago
- nsxwolf 5y agoMaking sourdough.
- rzzzt 5y agoKnitting
- calumetregion 5y agoExisting
- 55873445216111 5y ago"travelling"
- throwaway0x7E6 5y ago
- fulafel 5y agoTravelling is most CO2 intensive when air travel is involved. It would be fine if faraway travel took more time. But yes, in any case, we need to reduce air travel.
- 55873445216111 5y agoMy favorite hobby is is inhaling O2 and exhaling CO2.
- zardo 5y agoThe externalities should be internalized.
- BobbyJo 5y agoWe don't need to ban anything, just make it cost what it costs.
- Manuel_D 5y agoThis is accomplished via gas taxes. If you drive this car only 100 miles a year, you're still emitting a lot less CO2 than driving a Prius 10,000 miles a year.
- zardo 5y agoIt's not really accomplished unless the gas tax pulls that CO2 back down from the atmosphere.
- BizarroLand 5y agoPer the CDC, A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. The weighted average price per ton for carbon credits from forestry and land-use projects that reduce emissions or remove carbon from the atmosphere has been on a steady upward path, rising from $4.33 per credit in 2019 to $4.73 per credit so far in 2021, with a spike to $5.60 per credit in 2020. So, spend $35/year or if you want to get fancy, the cost of 1 tank of gas per year to offset your carbon footprint from driving and enjoy a guilt-free year. Or we could fold that cost into gas, if you use 1 tank a week, 10/gallons a tank, that would be less than $0.02 as a carbon tax credit. I would be all for that. But, if you raised the price of gas $0.50 and funneled all of that money into funding carbon capture industries, I would also be all for that, and at that price point more people would search for public transportation or purchase EV's so that is a double win. But then again, these taxes would disproportionately affect the middle and lower classes in suburban and rural communities so that would make life far more difficult on people who already have it tough enough and manufacturers would probably shovel any taxes you put on them directly to the consumers as well, so I would say it's almost as if there isn't a single simple fix to the issue and only a multipronged approach that takes into account dozens of moving variables rolled out over time is the only viable solution.
- rhinoceraptor 5y agoTalking about the individuals' personal choices first and foremost, instead of the state action and regulation that needs to occur is both alienating, and counterproductive. It's a tool used by corporations that benefit from lax regulation, to shift the blame for their negative externalities to the public. For example, the 'carbon footprint' is a marketing invention from BP.
- goodpoint 5y agoYes. Cars actively and provably harm other people with their emissions. Yet society tolerates them as a necessary evil (also due to the lobbying from car companies and big oil). Hobbies that harm other people by polluting are not a "necessary evil". They are not necessary. For example, in many cities in the world it's illegal to have a bonfire because it makes people (unwillingly) inhale toxic particulate.