4 ms·

Why would you take care of major offenders first, instead of taking care of all offenders at once? It's not as if you shutting down your heating means the coal

Why would you take care of major offenders first, instead of taking care of all offenders at once? It's not as if you shutting down your heating means the coal power plant next door looks at your chimney and goes "Hey lads, this sucker switched of the heating, add an extra shovel of coals!".

pshirshov 4y ago
Because my personal contribution won't change anything on the global scale but it would significantly impair my quality of life. Also because I've taken reasonable actions to reduce my footprint. Also because if we take care of the major offenders responsible for 70%-80% of the emissions there might be no need to care about the rest. I even doubt that anything would change if everyone in the developed world switches to this extreme economy. E.g. Russia burns coal and wastes hundreds of gigawatt hours to heat the atmosphere because of how their heating systems are designed. But of course it's lot easier to force me, a person who works from home, drives a hybrid car with 52MPG on average (and I rarely do more than a couple of hundreds km per month), travels couple of times per year and who installed a heat pump and a solar PV, to live with 19 degrees than to deal with Russia. It's equally easier to force me going full vegan instead of applying seemingly working solutions to reduce meat industry emissions (toilet training, seaweed diet, artificial meat in the end).
Zababa 4y ago
> Why would you take care of major offenders first, instead of taking care of all offenders at once? For the same reason that if you had two jobs with the exact same conditions, but one paid twice as much as the other, you would probably pick the one that pays more. Efficiency matters. Resources are limited. Oil is a resource. The capacity to take care of offenders is another.

4 ms·

Why would you take care of major offenders first, instead of taking care of all offenders at once? It's not as if you shutting down your heating means the coal

by Gasp0de 4y ago

pshirshov 4y ago
Because my personal contribution won't change anything on the global scale but it would significantly impair my quality of life. Also because I've taken reasonable actions to reduce my footprint. Also because if we take care of the major offenders responsible for 70%-80% of the emissions there might be no need to care about the rest. I even doubt that anything would change if everyone in the developed world switches to this extreme economy. E.g. Russia burns coal and wastes hundreds of gigawatt hours to heat the atmosphere because of how their heating systems are designed. But of course it's lot easier to force me, a person who works from home, drives a hybrid car with 52MPG on average (and I rarely do more than a couple of hundreds km per month), travels couple of times per year and who installed a heat pump and a solar PV, to live with 19 degrees than to deal with Russia. It's equally easier to force me going full vegan instead of applying seemingly working solutions to reduce meat industry emissions (toilet training, seaweed diet, artificial meat in the end).
Zababa 4y ago
> Why would you take care of major offenders first, instead of taking care of all offenders at once? For the same reason that if you had two jobs with the exact same conditions, but one paid twice as much as the other, you would probably pick the one that pays more. Efficiency matters. Resources are limited. Oil is a resource. The capacity to take care of offenders is another.