4 ms·

> What has a bigger carbon footprint: driving from London to Brighton or eating an eight ounce steak? Is this really the kind of question you expect people to

> What has a bigger carbon footprint: driving from London to Brighton or eating an eight ounce steak? Is this really the kind of question you expect people to be asking themselves? Especially if they need to drive from London to Brighton and are really hungry? Sure, if some kind of governmental oversight rationing your carbon output is introduced, where you must ask yourself these questions or else, then yes. But that would be such a bleak future...

pif 4y ago
Yeah, that's what too many so-called ecologists tend to forget: if you really want to make the situation better, then you have to push for policies that may be actually accepted and implemented by the general public. And that means that ecology must be the top priority... just after personal comfort!
barry-cotter 4y ago
> Sure, if some kind of governmental oversight rationing your carbon output is introduced, where you must ask yourself these questions or else, then yes. But that would be such a bleak future... Alternatively the government could just tax carbon emissions and let people make their own decisions about how to spend their money.
- azangru 4y ago
  > Alternatively the government could just tax carbon emissions and let people make their own decisions about how to spend their money. Then, I am sure, those taxes would just be part of the price tag. Just as tobacco duties are. In which case one wouldn't need to exercise their carbon literacy before buying a product, just as no-one needs to give a thought about tobacco duties before deciding whether to buy a pack of cigarettes.
  - barry-cotter 4y ago
    Yes. That would be better in every way than people developing carbon literacy.
mr_mitm 4y ago
A CO2 tax would solve this
- davidgoldtooth 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mr_mitm 4y ago
    The relative amount of CO2 is irrelevant because the rest of the atmosphere is transparent in the relevant wavelengths. You don't understand basic physics.
throwaway22032 4y ago
The most charitable reframing I can think of is this: Which costs more, driving to Brighton or eating a steak? Almost everyone in the UK could intuit this, they might have to look up the distance. The thing is that the answer doesn't result in a person choosing one or the other unless they're really, really poor. On a nice summers' day I might drive to Brighton and then eat a steak whilst I'm there. Actually, probably I'd get the train so that I can have a few pints. Hey, there's a thought.
- azangru 4y ago
  > Actually, probably I'd get the train so that I can have a few pints Oh, I agree with that; that's very relatable; but then, that's what being poor always has been like — prioritize, economize, save, think about whether you can afford that ride or that dinner... We didn't have to compound those basic arithmetics with an ethical dimension :-)

pif 4y ago

Yeah, that's what too many so-called ecologists tend to forget: if you really want to make the situation better, then you have to push for policies that may be actually accepted and implemented by the general public. And that means that ecology must be the top priority... just after personal comfort!

barry-cotter 4y ago

> Sure, if some kind of governmental oversight rationing your carbon output is introduced, where you must ask yourself these questions or else, then yes. But that would be such a bleak future... Alternatively the government could just tax carbon emissions and let people make their own decisions about how to spend their money.

azangru 4y ago
> Alternatively the government could just tax carbon emissions and let people make their own decisions about how to spend their money. Then, I am sure, those taxes would just be part of the price tag. Just as tobacco duties are. In which case one wouldn't need to exercise their carbon literacy before buying a product, just as no-one needs to give a thought about tobacco duties before deciding whether to buy a pack of cigarettes.
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  Yes. That would be better in every way than people developing carbon literacy.

mr_mitm 4y ago

A CO2 tax would solve this

davidgoldtooth 4y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mr_mitm 4y ago
  The relative amount of CO2 is irrelevant because the rest of the atmosphere is transparent in the relevant wavelengths. You don't understand basic physics.

throwaway22032 4y ago

The most charitable reframing I can think of is this: Which costs more, driving to Brighton or eating a steak? Almost everyone in the UK could intuit this, they might have to look up the distance. The thing is that the answer doesn't result in a person choosing one or the other unless they're really, really poor. On a nice summers' day I might drive to Brighton and then eat a steak whilst I'm there. Actually, probably I'd get the train so that I can have a few pints. Hey, there's a thought.

azangru 4y ago
> Actually, probably I'd get the train so that I can have a few pints Oh, I agree with that; that's very relatable; but then, that's what being poor always has been like — prioritize, economize, save, think about whether you can afford that ride or that dinner... We didn't have to compound those basic arithmetics with an ethical dimension :-)