3 ms·

This is a ridiculous hammering of numbers, designed to pass some ideological message totally devoid of any root in reality. USA total CO2 emissions are less th

This is a ridiculous hammering of numbers, designed to pass some ideological message totally devoid of any root in reality. USA total CO2 emissions are less than 14% of global emissions. You aren't doing the environment any favors by pretending that it's by targeting a subset of US population, that you are going to change anything relevant on global emissions.

bluescrn 3y ago
Meanwhile, the private jets continue to fly, and the little people think 'well, there's no way I'm giving up my car/meat/heating/AC while the elite are still globetrotting via private jets and superyachts', and our leaders still refuse to set a half-decent example.
- wtcactus 3y ago
  It's a great thing the "little people" don't give up on their car/meat/heating/AC. Forcing anyone to give up on any of those - either by direct prohibition or taxation - its a totalitarian move.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    When the irresistible force meets the unmovable object something will have to give. Cars, meat, heating and AC are not rights, and banning them - at at least moderating them within reason - is not totalitarian. And when it comes to the difference between living and at least cars and meat it's actually not such a hard choice. Heating and AC are more complex: those can be life savers, especially when the climate gets more extreme. But there are other options: migrate to places where it isn't that hot or cold. And that's where we have a nice little feedback loop: on account of climate change the temperate zone where you are not expected to require much heating or much cooling is shrinking so you'll need more heating and more AC which will cause more energy to be pumped into the atmosphere. Those 'little people' are still by and large the richest fraction of the world population (they have cars, eat meat, have heated houses and AC). It's the real poor who pay the price for all this.
    - wtcactus 3y ago
      There are a lot of things that aren't defined as rights. Are you fine with the State going after those as well? According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, some things that aren't rights, are: - Gay marriage; - Abortion; - Self Determination of Gender; - Education above the fundamental level.
      - cutemonster 3y ago
        They wrote "moderating them within reason", sounds more like taxes to me. What if gas taxes were higher in the US (maybe a bit proportional to income?), and after 20 years there were instead lots of subways, and streets were bike and pedestrian friendly ... (like here where I live)
    - bluescrn 3y ago
      > Cars, meat, heating and AC are not rights We have no right to prerequisites for being a productive worker (safe shelter, food, the ability to travel to a workplace) But we have to maintain the right for people to breed a dozen kids if they feel like it, despite population being the multiplier that scales every single problem the world faces.
      - TacticalCoder 3y ago
        > ... despite population being the multiplier that scales every single problem the world faces That's the big one which people don't understand. The poor that has five kids is doing more harm to the planet than the rich who has only one kid. Wife and I decided, on purpose and for that reason, to have only one kid. And no matter what we do during our lifetime, we're polluting less than people having more than one kid. It's a fact and a simple one. Yet people simply don't understand. My father had four kids. Today's world problems are his fault and nobody is changing my mind on that. And don't even get me started on people having many kids for religious purposes, to conquer the world with the women's bellies (as they say): they'll get the planet they deserve.
        3y ago
  - sentimentscan 3y ago
    Why taxing things that are causing harm to people is considered totalitarian?
    - bluescrn 3y ago
      It's potentially about centralised power literally taxing people to death (unaffordable housing/energy/transport) in a probably-futile attempt to modify the climate. Yes, climate change is very real. But my current opinion is that 'solutions' are not. Especially while we're still fighting/escalating/anticipating wars between nations. Solutions would take a truly global effort, but people generally don't want to sacrifice their democracies and have a 'new world order/world government' imposed upon them, let alone have their elected leaders puppeteered by shadowy forces 'above' them.
      - t0bia_s 3y ago
        - Especially while we're still fighting/escalating/anticipating wars between nations. I'm surprised how many people have double-thinking. Bother about climate change and also fully support war production.
  - msm_ 3y ago
    It's a great thing the "little people" don't give up on their freon. Forcing anyone to give it up - either by direct prohibition or taxation - its a totalitarian move. Honestly though, limiting harmful things and/or pushing people towards the better solution is one of the roles of government. This is how we beat the prisoner paradoxes of modern life. For example I don't believe we should ban cars (nobody does), but I welcome good, affordable and available public transport. People living in places with good public transport don't have to depend so heavily on their car, and everyone is happier.
meandmycode 3y ago
Do you have a source for the 14%?
- cutemonster 3y ago
  Not GP but this says 14% 2021: https://www.statista.com/topics/3185/us-greenhouse-gas-emissions/#topicOverview https://www.statista.com/topics/3185/us-greenhouse-gas-emiss... (Btw there are now some sibling comments)
cutemonster 3y ago
14% is a lot -- the US is just 4% of the world population. Targeting that subset in the US and other countries, seems to have real effects, the opposite to what you said. (if whatever methods chosen to influence their behaviour, actually worked).
- wtcactus 3y ago
  The argument that X country it's "only" Y% of global population effectively rewards over population and put in question people being allowed to migrate into the West. USA is a huge country, and compared to many Asian countries, it's not polluting anywhere near the same amount compared to their available natural resources. The same way you may feel it's acceptable to tell Americans: "well, consume less", others else should feel acceptable to tell China and others: "well, procreate less".
  - sgerenser 3y ago
    China already does procreate far less. 1.16 children per woman[1], vs. U.S. 1.66 per woman[2]. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/270164/fertility-rate-in-china/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/270164/fertility-rate-in... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/269941/fertility-rate-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/269941/fertility-rate-in...
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      How did China's fertility rate drop so quickly? They were at 1.81 in 2017 and then...1.16 in 2021? It doesn't seem to be related to just the pandemic. The only thing that makes sense is maybe the government going from discouraging fertility to encouraging it (i.e. people just do the opposite of what the government encourages them to do).
      - cutemonster 3y ago
        Doesn't need to be current time events causing that. Look at the population pyramid - look at how much fewer people there are, below 30 (a sharp dip), and a small shortage of women on top of that. That's 30 years lag https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China (from 2020)
fatuna 3y ago
But every country on Earth can say the same, right? Everybody is 'only responsible for a fraction of the total polution'. It's a tragedy of the commons kind of situation.
fennecfoxy 3y ago
Is that the US' direct emissions? Or does that include international emissions that are the result of US economic activity? Surely if an American citizen buys a product from China, the emissions involved in producing that product and shipping it over are counted against America, right? If the US ships rubbish to a foreign country where it's burnt (because they were the cheapest option), are those emissions counted against the US?

bluescrn 3y ago

Meanwhile, the private jets continue to fly, and the little people think 'well, there's no way I'm giving up my car/meat/heating/AC while the elite are still globetrotting via private jets and superyachts', and our leaders still refuse to set a half-decent example.

wtcactus 3y ago
It's a great thing the "little people" don't give up on their car/meat/heating/AC. Forcing anyone to give up on any of those - either by direct prohibition or taxation - its a totalitarian move.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  When the irresistible force meets the unmovable object something will have to give. Cars, meat, heating and AC are not rights, and banning them - at at least moderating them within reason - is not totalitarian. And when it comes to the difference between living and at least cars and meat it's actually not such a hard choice. Heating and AC are more complex: those can be life savers, especially when the climate gets more extreme. But there are other options: migrate to places where it isn't that hot or cold. And that's where we have a nice little feedback loop: on account of climate change the temperate zone where you are not expected to require much heating or much cooling is shrinking so you'll need more heating and more AC which will cause more energy to be pumped into the atmosphere. Those 'little people' are still by and large the richest fraction of the world population (they have cars, eat meat, have heated houses and AC). It's the real poor who pay the price for all this.
  - wtcactus 3y ago
    There are a lot of things that aren't defined as rights. Are you fine with the State going after those as well? According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, some things that aren't rights, are: - Gay marriage; - Abortion; - Self Determination of Gender; - Education above the fundamental level.
    - cutemonster 3y ago
      They wrote "moderating them within reason", sounds more like taxes to me. What if gas taxes were higher in the US (maybe a bit proportional to income?), and after 20 years there were instead lots of subways, and streets were bike and pedestrian friendly ... (like here where I live)
  - bluescrn 3y ago
    > Cars, meat, heating and AC are not rights We have no right to prerequisites for being a productive worker (safe shelter, food, the ability to travel to a workplace) But we have to maintain the right for people to breed a dozen kids if they feel like it, despite population being the multiplier that scales every single problem the world faces.
    - TacticalCoder 3y ago
      > ... despite population being the multiplier that scales every single problem the world faces That's the big one which people don't understand. The poor that has five kids is doing more harm to the planet than the rich who has only one kid. Wife and I decided, on purpose and for that reason, to have only one kid. And no matter what we do during our lifetime, we're polluting less than people having more than one kid. It's a fact and a simple one. Yet people simply don't understand. My father had four kids. Today's world problems are his fault and nobody is changing my mind on that. And don't even get me started on people having many kids for religious purposes, to conquer the world with the women's bellies (as they say): they'll get the planet they deserve.
      - 3y ago
- sentimentscan 3y ago
  Why taxing things that are causing harm to people is considered totalitarian?
  - bluescrn 3y ago
    It's potentially about centralised power literally taxing people to death (unaffordable housing/energy/transport) in a probably-futile attempt to modify the climate. Yes, climate change is very real. But my current opinion is that 'solutions' are not. Especially while we're still fighting/escalating/anticipating wars between nations. Solutions would take a truly global effort, but people generally don't want to sacrifice their democracies and have a 'new world order/world government' imposed upon them, let alone have their elected leaders puppeteered by shadowy forces 'above' them.
    - t0bia_s 3y ago
      - Especially while we're still fighting/escalating/anticipating wars between nations. I'm surprised how many people have double-thinking. Bother about climate change and also fully support war production.
- msm_ 3y ago
  It's a great thing the "little people" don't give up on their freon. Forcing anyone to give it up - either by direct prohibition or taxation - its a totalitarian move. Honestly though, limiting harmful things and/or pushing people towards the better solution is one of the roles of government. This is how we beat the prisoner paradoxes of modern life. For example I don't believe we should ban cars (nobody does), but I welcome good, affordable and available public transport. People living in places with good public transport don't have to depend so heavily on their car, and everyone is happier.

meandmycode 3y ago

Do you have a source for the 14%?

cutemonster 3y ago
Not GP but this says 14% 2021: https://www.statista.com/topics/3185/us-greenhouse-gas-emissions/#topicOverview https://www.statista.com/topics/3185/us-greenhouse-gas-emiss... (Btw there are now some sibling comments)

cutemonster 3y ago

14% is a lot -- the US is just 4% of the world population. Targeting that subset in the US and other countries, seems to have real effects, the opposite to what you said. (if whatever methods chosen to influence their behaviour, actually worked).

wtcactus 3y ago
The argument that X country it's "only" Y% of global population effectively rewards over population and put in question people being allowed to migrate into the West. USA is a huge country, and compared to many Asian countries, it's not polluting anywhere near the same amount compared to their available natural resources. The same way you may feel it's acceptable to tell Americans: "well, consume less", others else should feel acceptable to tell China and others: "well, procreate less".
- sgerenser 3y ago
  China already does procreate far less. 1.16 children per woman[1], vs. U.S. 1.66 per woman[2]. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/270164/fertility-rate-in-china/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/270164/fertility-rate-in... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/269941/fertility-rate-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/269941/fertility-rate-in...
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    How did China's fertility rate drop so quickly? They were at 1.81 in 2017 and then...1.16 in 2021? It doesn't seem to be related to just the pandemic. The only thing that makes sense is maybe the government going from discouraging fertility to encouraging it (i.e. people just do the opposite of what the government encourages them to do).
    - cutemonster 3y ago
      Doesn't need to be current time events causing that. Look at the population pyramid - look at how much fewer people there are, below 30 (a sharp dip), and a small shortage of women on top of that. That's 30 years lag https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China (from 2020)

fatuna 3y ago

But every country on Earth can say the same, right? Everybody is 'only responsible for a fraction of the total polution'. It's a tragedy of the commons kind of situation.

fennecfoxy 3y ago

Is that the US' direct emissions? Or does that include international emissions that are the result of US economic activity? Surely if an American citizen buys a product from China, the emissions involved in producing that product and shipping it over are counted against America, right? If the US ships rubbish to a foreign country where it's burnt (because they were the cheapest option), are those emissions counted against the US?