4 ms·

In life, do we behave in every way like the worst person we know? If my neighbor doesn't take out their trash, that doesn't mean I shouldn't do it. In fact, it

In life, do we behave in every way like the worst person we know? If my neighbor doesn't take out their trash, that doesn't mean I shouldn't do it. In fact, it works the opposite way: We each influence others; if we don't do it, fewer around us will; if we do something good, more people around us will - we set the standards. I try to act like the best person I know (and fail often!). Consumer do emit significant amounts of carbon, and whatever someone else does, we need to reduce it. Pointing the finger at someone else and saying, 'well they do it', doesn't help climate change; it just throws around blame - generally a useless distraction in life - and adjusts our standards to the lowest denominator.

guerrilla 4y ago
If 90% of the problem is caused by someone else, then spending 99% of the media coverage and legislation on me is just a highly-effective diversionary tactic! Come on, now.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > 90% of the problem is caused by someone else Is that true? Or is it true that no factor is more than 10%, so everyone can use this rhetoric and say '90% isn't me!' Also, if you think about it, though it's a very trendy take (which you can see repeated many times on this page) - think past the trend: it's a transparent, embarrassing abdication of responsibility. As just one person, only a tiny amount of the world is impacted by me, but I still have full responsibility for it. I don't sh-t in the street and say, '99.99% isn't me'. A soldier doesn't go AWOL and say, 'only 0.0001% of the battle is me'. > 99% of the media coverage and legislation on me Is that true? And if so, is it only the things you read about, the media coverage covering things that interest their readers and not generally addressing technical regulations of power plants? There's such an attempt at a victim position - a common rhetorical tactic to disrupt progress and serious consideration of issues. Instead of pointing the finger and using rhetoric, which accomplishes nothing, what are you doing about climate change?
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    Neither is true nor false, it was a rhetorical exaggeration for effect. But yes, it's very close because corporations are far more responsible for CO2 than individuals. > Transportation (27% of 2020 greenhouse gas emissions) – The transportation sector generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation primarily come from burning fossil fuel for our cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes. Over 90% of the fuel used for transportation is petroleum based, which includes primarily gasoline and diesel.2 > Electricity production (25% of 2020 greenhouse gas emissions) – Electricity production generates the second largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Approximately 60% of our electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, mostly coal and natural gas.3 > Industry (24% of 2020 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from industry primarily come from burning fossil fuels for energy, as well as greenhouse gas emissions from certain chemical reactions necessary to produce goods from raw materials. > Commercial and Residential (13% of 2020 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from businesses and homes arise primarily from fossil fuels burned for heat, the use of certain products that contain greenhouse gases, and the handling of waste. > Agriculture (11% of 2020 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture come from livestock such as cows, agricultural soils, and rice production. > Land Use and Forestry (13% of 2020 greenhouse gas emissions) – Land areas can act as a sink (absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere) or a source of greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, since 1990, managed forests and other lands are a net sink, i.e., they have absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emit. > the media coverage covering things that interest their readers and not generally addressing technical regulations of power plants? This is insanely naive. The media is propaganda which benefits their owners, the same ones that own the polluting corporations. 3/4 of Transportation comes from road travel, only 45% of which is consumers, so... 9% of emissions due to road travel by consumers. The EPA doesn't distinguish between "Commercial and Residential" but we can be extremely generous and say 50% of that residential (we're ignoring that commercial is actually using the vast majority due to refrigeration, lighting and air conditioning)... then around 15% is due to things consumers have direct power over. Obviously I mixed numbers (greenhouse gasses vs. just CO2) but as you can see by rough estimate, the rhetorical exaggeration is not far off at all. Newspapers just blame individuals so that those who actually have control of these things and profit from it can keep profiting. > Instead of pointing the finger and using rhetoric, which accomplishes nothing, what are you doing about climate change? Nice ad hominem but it would fail even if it weren't a logical fallacy, because the answer is far more than almost everyone, which is pretty easy in Sweden using public transportation, buying only green electricity, living next door to two second hand stores and buying virtually nothing ever anyway (being a minimalist) and running everything into the ground before I replace it. > Instead of pointing the finger and using rhetoric Correctly identifying the source of the problem is exactly what everyone should do in every situation, otherwise you end up with the wrong solutions. [1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport
ajsnigrutin 4y ago
If someone builds a shitty damn (for holding water), and it collapses, and this results in flood waters destroying whole cities, and while your house is being destroyed by water, is it really worth it to focus on your neighbor pissing into the water from his rooftop? I mean yes.. technically he's contributing to the flooding, but you know... https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/dbabxu/til_that_the_worlds_15_largest_ships_put_out_more/ https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/dbabxu/til_tha... combine this ^ with: https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2016/12/05/tale-fish-two-countries https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2016/12/05/tale-fish-two-cou... > An example of this would be when a wild cod is caught off the coast of Alaska and, due to economic factors, is shipped to another country to be fabricated into fillets and packaged. If this process of turning a whole fish into packaged fillets occurs in China, the cod fillets are declared “Wild Caught Product of China” upon import into the United States. So, I cannot buy straws because of pollution, but large industry, can catch fish in alaska, transport it to china, process it there, transport it back to US and sell it?

guerrilla 4y ago

If 90% of the problem is caused by someone else, then spending 99% of the media coverage and legislation on me is just a highly-effective diversionary tactic! Come on, now.

wolverine876 4y ago
> 90% of the problem is caused by someone else Is that true? Or is it true that no factor is more than 10%, so everyone can use this rhetoric and say '90% isn't me!' Also, if you think about it, though it's a very trendy take (which you can see repeated many times on this page) - think past the trend: it's a transparent, embarrassing abdication of responsibility. As just one person, only a tiny amount of the world is impacted by me, but I still have full responsibility for it. I don't sh-t in the street and say, '99.99% isn't me'. A soldier doesn't go AWOL and say, 'only 0.0001% of the battle is me'. > 99% of the media coverage and legislation on me Is that true? And if so, is it only the things you read about, the media coverage covering things that interest their readers and not generally addressing technical regulations of power plants? There's such an attempt at a victim position - a common rhetorical tactic to disrupt progress and serious consideration of issues. Instead of pointing the finger and using rhetoric, which accomplishes nothing, what are you doing about climate change?
- guerrilla 4y ago
  Neither is true nor false, it was a rhetorical exaggeration for effect. But yes, it's very close because corporations are far more responsible for CO2 than individuals. > Transportation (27% of 2020 greenhouse gas emissions) – The transportation sector generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation primarily come from burning fossil fuel for our cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes. Over 90% of the fuel used for transportation is petroleum based, which includes primarily gasoline and diesel.2 > Electricity production (25% of 2020 greenhouse gas emissions) – Electricity production generates the second largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Approximately 60% of our electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, mostly coal and natural gas.3 > Industry (24% of 2020 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from industry primarily come from burning fossil fuels for energy, as well as greenhouse gas emissions from certain chemical reactions necessary to produce goods from raw materials. > Commercial and Residential (13% of 2020 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from businesses and homes arise primarily from fossil fuels burned for heat, the use of certain products that contain greenhouse gases, and the handling of waste. > Agriculture (11% of 2020 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture come from livestock such as cows, agricultural soils, and rice production. > Land Use and Forestry (13% of 2020 greenhouse gas emissions) – Land areas can act as a sink (absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere) or a source of greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, since 1990, managed forests and other lands are a net sink, i.e., they have absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emit. > the media coverage covering things that interest their readers and not generally addressing technical regulations of power plants? This is insanely naive. The media is propaganda which benefits their owners, the same ones that own the polluting corporations. 3/4 of Transportation comes from road travel, only 45% of which is consumers, so... 9% of emissions due to road travel by consumers. The EPA doesn't distinguish between "Commercial and Residential" but we can be extremely generous and say 50% of that residential (we're ignoring that commercial is actually using the vast majority due to refrigeration, lighting and air conditioning)... then around 15% is due to things consumers have direct power over. Obviously I mixed numbers (greenhouse gasses vs. just CO2) but as you can see by rough estimate, the rhetorical exaggeration is not far off at all. Newspapers just blame individuals so that those who actually have control of these things and profit from it can keep profiting. > Instead of pointing the finger and using rhetoric, which accomplishes nothing, what are you doing about climate change? Nice ad hominem but it would fail even if it weren't a logical fallacy, because the answer is far more than almost everyone, which is pretty easy in Sweden using public transportation, buying only green electricity, living next door to two second hand stores and buying virtually nothing ever anyway (being a minimalist) and running everything into the ground before I replace it. > Instead of pointing the finger and using rhetoric Correctly identifying the source of the problem is exactly what everyone should do in every situation, otherwise you end up with the wrong solutions. [1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport

ajsnigrutin 4y ago

If someone builds a shitty damn (for holding water), and it collapses, and this results in flood waters destroying whole cities, and while your house is being destroyed by water, is it really worth it to focus on your neighbor pissing into the water from his rooftop? I mean yes.. technically he's contributing to the flooding, but you know... https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/dbabxu/til_that_the_worlds_15_largest_ships_put_out_more/ https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/dbabxu/til_tha... combine this ^ with: https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2016/12/05/tale-fish-two-countries https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2016/12/05/tale-fish-two-cou... > An example of this would be when a wild cod is caught off the coast of Alaska and, due to economic factors, is shipped to another country to be fabricated into fillets and packaged. If this process of turning a whole fish into packaged fillets occurs in China, the cod fillets are declared “Wild Caught Product of China” upon import into the United States. So, I cannot buy straws because of pollution, but large industry, can catch fish in alaska, transport it to china, process it there, transport it back to US and sell it?