4 ms·

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! C

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
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Every example of corporate CO2 emission is in service of consumer needs. The consumer is obviously accountable too. You can't sit and eat a mail order stake from japan and say you have no carbon footprint, but the airline and ag industries do. The obvious answer has always been cap and trade, but it is dead on arrival because consumers don't want to pay more for their CO2 intensive goods.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      > Every example of corporate CO2 emission is in service of consumer needs. They have no power over how such things are produced. Markets are not democracies. Everything those corporations are doing can be done in a sustainable way, but they choose not to for the sake of growth. You're also forgetting all the manipulative advertising and propaganda driving people to consume more for the sake of growth. Anyway, even if every single consumer made the absolute best choice (which is impossible given information asymmetry and finite wealth), then corporations would still be responsible for 90% and the news would still be talking about individuals 99% of the time.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Every molecule of CO2 produced goes into a good that consumers purchase. I would argue that corporations have zero carbon footprint and consumers have 100% of the carbon footprint. >[consumers] have no power over how such things are produced. Consumers have 100% of the power. If they dont purchase a good, it wont be produced. The whole reason Industries dont move away from carbon is because consumers refuse to pay more for it. For example, carbon free airlines are technically feasible today but Dead on Arrival because no one will pay for the ticket. Regulations can have an impact, but the only reason they work is because they take the option to buy cheap and dirty products away from Consumers. Like I said above, cap-and-trade is a simple solution but consumers don't want it because they know prices will get past along. 1 million little Industrial regulations will also pass the costs along, but consumers are more okay with them because they erroneously think the cost won't be passed to them. They have a downside that bad are rarely logical and have unintended and sometimes counterproductive consequences.
- saiya-jin 4y ago
  Dude, you are completely missing the point. Real change should be regulatory, to massive corporations that do by far most damage. Blaming average joe is turning large part of population into fed-up-by-all-this-shit group, I can see it around me quite a bit. Me personally I am still all in, but at this point I am completely fed up with radical and utterly naive folks who blame all general population and push for more restrictions, celebrating straws and ignoring lobbying elephants. Thats not where real solution is. Going your way is a very ineffective solution that will take too long to get into effect (convince population that will make politicians realize this is what gets them elected, and over time regulations come), and the damage needs to be addressed now
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    That's not what the activists are doing at all - especially the idea of ignoring industry (!!) or "blaming" anyone (but the oil industry)! It's the same old tactic used by reactionaries to polarize and disrupt every other discussion - somehow twist the reactionaries into victims, demonize whoever by just lobbing tons of BS at the wall, and turn it into an impossible emotional discussion. End of discussion! I don't care what you think about activists; I think that's an intentional distraction - just like the others that have been used for decades to prevent action on climate change. You are doing a great job of it. You are missing the point, purposely, because now we are talking about your BS (and there is more BS in the comment, but I have better things to do).

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
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Every example of corporate CO2 emission is in service of consumer needs. The consumer is obviously accountable too. You can't sit and eat a mail order stake from japan and say you have no carbon footprint, but the airline and ag industries do. The obvious answer has always been cap and trade, but it is dead on arrival because consumers don't want to pay more for their CO2 intensive goods.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    > Every example of corporate CO2 emission is in service of consumer needs. They have no power over how such things are produced. Markets are not democracies. Everything those corporations are doing can be done in a sustainable way, but they choose not to for the sake of growth. You're also forgetting all the manipulative advertising and propaganda driving people to consume more for the sake of growth. Anyway, even if every single consumer made the absolute best choice (which is impossible given information asymmetry and finite wealth), then corporations would still be responsible for 90% and the news would still be talking about individuals 99% of the time.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Every molecule of CO2 produced goes into a good that consumers purchase. I would argue that corporations have zero carbon footprint and consumers have 100% of the carbon footprint. >[consumers] have no power over how such things are produced. Consumers have 100% of the power. If they dont purchase a good, it wont be produced. The whole reason Industries dont move away from carbon is because consumers refuse to pay more for it. For example, carbon free airlines are technically feasible today but Dead on Arrival because no one will pay for the ticket. Regulations can have an impact, but the only reason they work is because they take the option to buy cheap and dirty products away from Consumers. Like I said above, cap-and-trade is a simple solution but consumers don't want it because they know prices will get past along. 1 million little Industrial regulations will also pass the costs along, but consumers are more okay with them because they erroneously think the cost won't be passed to them. They have a downside that bad are rarely logical and have unintended and sometimes counterproductive consequences.
saiya-jin 4y ago
Dude, you are completely missing the point. Real change should be regulatory, to massive corporations that do by far most damage. Blaming average joe is turning large part of population into fed-up-by-all-this-shit group, I can see it around me quite a bit. Me personally I am still all in, but at this point I am completely fed up with radical and utterly naive folks who blame all general population and push for more restrictions, celebrating straws and ignoring lobbying elephants. Thats not where real solution is. Going your way is a very ineffective solution that will take too long to get into effect (convince population that will make politicians realize this is what gets them elected, and over time regulations come), and the damage needs to be addressed now
- wolverine876 4y ago
  That's not what the activists are doing at all - especially the idea of ignoring industry (!!) or "blaming" anyone (but the oil industry)! It's the same old tactic used by reactionaries to polarize and disrupt every other discussion - somehow twist the reactionaries into victims, demonize whoever by just lobbing tons of BS at the wall, and turn it into an impossible emotional discussion. End of discussion! I don't care what you think about activists; I think that's an intentional distraction - just like the others that have been used for decades to prevent action on climate change. You are doing a great job of it. You are missing the point, purposely, because now we are talking about your BS (and there is more BS in the comment, but I have better things to do).