4 ms·
When you look at co2 per capita, I'm sad to say it's a bit fair. Even china doesn't emit that much per capita. Reducing emissions will be immensely difficult
by jokoon 4y ago
When you look at co2 per capita, I'm sad to say it's a bit fair.
Even china doesn't emit that much per capita.
Reducing emissions will be immensely difficult for the US. It cannot be done without big consequences for the US economy.
- smt88 4y agoYes, there would be big consequences. Reducing emissions would mean a huge number of blue-collar jobs and development of technology. The only reason we don't do this is because one of the two political parties has been fully captured by the fossil fuel industry.
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoThe only reason? Really? Is Biden putting forth climate proposals that would actually change things? No, he isn't. Is OAC? No. Is anybody? No. Why not? Because they all know that nobody will put up with the pain it would cause - not even the blue states.
- euroderf 4y agoIt's time to enlist Oprah. "You get a heat pump! And YOU get a heat pump! EVERYBODY gets a heat pump!"
- smt88 4y agoBiden advocated for a huge climate and economic stimulis bill and couldn't get a single Republican to support it. CBO itself regularly says that climate bills are ways to save money, not spend it. https://www.citizen.org/news/cbo-says-climate-bill-would-cut-deficit-by-19b/ https://www.citizen.org/news/cbo-says-climate-bill-would-cut...
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoOK, that was a climate bill. Back to my question. Would that actually change things? Change them enough to matter? Change them enough to, say, cut in half the per-person emissions of CO2? Change them enough to make the US fall in line with the Paris agreement? Change them enough that, if every nation did them, we would not exceed 1.5 C? I'm pretty sure the answer is "no" to all of those.
- jokoon 4y agoYes, but also because it would be such a big economic recession, it would cause so many riots and civil unrest. It's not only politics, it's also because there are too many americans who think they are entitled to a car, a house and hamburgers. It wouldn't be a problem if citizens could accept change, but it's not just a political problem, it goes much much deeper than that.
- carapace 4y agoVaclav Smil (among others) has pointed out that this really just means going back to a 1960's level of energy use for the USA, and that's really not much of a hardship or downgrading of quality of life. Václav Smil at Driva Climate Investment Meeting 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkj_91IJVBk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkj_91IJVBk We have the technology to keep up or improve QoL while we reduce emissions. Just curbing our waste energy would get us halfway there, something like that. (E.g. insulating houses, plugging drafts, better grid management, etc.)